Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Livingston

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the Livingston Advisory Committee's request to meet him.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The reply sent to the Midlothian and West Lothian Joint Planning Advisory Committee explained why the new special development area was confined to West Central Scotland and the basis on which, as an exceptional measure, Livingston new town was being considered for possible special development area status. It indicated also that these explanations made a meeting unnecessary.

Mr. Eadie: The Secretary of State's decision not to meet the Livingston Advisory Committee will be regarded as an insult to responsible elected people in that area. Notwithstanding the reasons which he has given for his decision, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the new town of Livingston we have serious unemployment problems now—in fact, the unemployment rate is 18 per cent. of the male population—and will he reconsider his decision, for I am sure that the committee has something to say to him which would be helpful?

Mr. Campbell: I hope that there will be no misunderstanding about my reply, which stated the position in a constructive way. Discussions about the status of the new town are going on at this moment, so I cannot add much at this stage, but I certainly do not wish people

to misunderstand my attitude on the matter at all.

Mr. Dalyell: Should not Livingston be treated as overspill?

Mr. Campbell: Livingston was originally set up as a new town in order to assist with Glasgow overspill. It is upon the degree to which it is able to help West Central Scotland that its status as a special development area may depend.

Oil Fuel Charges

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from haulage and transport undertakings in Scotland on increased oil fuel charges; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

Mr. Eadie: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that escalating fares and transport costs are causing great concern to the people of Scotland? Has consideration been given, or is consideration being given now, to an effort to do something about our own indigenous energy resources in order to remove ourselves from the clutches of dependence on overseas oil?

Mr. Younger: That is one factor which enters into the consideration of the uses of fuels, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not specifically related to the subject of road haulage charges, to which his Question referred.

Ben Wyvis (Development)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Highlands and Islands Development Board intends to publish its report on the development of the Ben Wyvis area of Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Younger: I undestand that very recently the Highlands and Islands Development Board received from consultants a report on the possibilities of winter sports development on Ben Wyvis. It is for the board to decide whether publication of this report would further such development.

Mr. Gray: I am glad to know that the board has now received this report, for the delay was causing considerable worry in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend suggest to the Highlands and Islands Development Board that, when considering this report, it should consider also the privately commissioned report which has already been prepared, having been commissioned by the Ben Wyvis Development Corporation?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend may like to know that the report took a little longer than expected because, in addition to evaluating the market potential of Ben Wyvis, the consultants made quantitative assessments of existing winter sports facilities both in Scotland and on the Continent and of their likely development over the next decade. It has been a fairly wide-ranging study which, I hope, will prove useful.

Inverness—North Road

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a timetable for the work to be carried out on the new fast road from Inverness to the North, and an estimated completion date.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have now informed the local planning authorities that I proposed to adopt as my preferred proposal a direct route across the Black Isle, including crossings of both the Beauly Firth and the Cromarty Firth, which will be linked with Dingwall by an improved road from Tore to the present A9 north of Conon Bridge. After further informal consultations with the highway authorities and other interested bodies, I will publish detailed proposals for public consideration. Thereafter the statutory processes will have to be completed before the timetable for work can be forecast.

Mr. Gray: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement, which will be welcomed in my constituency. Such is my pleasure that it calls for no further supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: That is much appreciated by the Chair.

Mr. Maclennan: While I understand the hon. Gentleman's comment, greater satisfaction would have been felt north of Inverness if the Secretary of State had announced at the same time his willing-

ness to bridge the Dornoch Firth. Will he now give an indication of when this can be done?

Mr. Campbell: I have announced the crossing of two Firths, and that is not bad for one day. As it was only two years ago that I wrote to the former Secretary of State asking him to keep this option open, I am very glad to be in a position today to announce these two crossings. As I have said before, the question of the Dornoch Firth, to which I drew attention two years ago, will have to be looked into in the future.

M80 (Lanarkshire)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the proposed starting date for the building of the Lanarkshire section of the M80 motorway, and when it is likely to be ready for use.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend will publish proposals for relieving the Lanarkshire section of A80 when current studies, which affect also the adjoining length of A80 within Glasgow, are completed.

Mr. Smith: The Minister will be aware that the studies have been going on for some time and that the problem for the people of Stews, through whose village the A80 now goes, is reaching disastrous proportions, particularly as the traffic is building up to the developments in Cumbernauld. Will the Government please take some steps immediately to announce a date for the start of the building of the motorway so that those people have some relief for the future?

Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the traffic conditions on some parts of the road. For that reason I have recently authorised various traffic management measures, including the provision of pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and the removal of bollards. As soon as the studies to which I have referred are completed, I shall consult Glasgow Corporation about the priority to be given to the construction of the new parts of the road.

Regional Development Policy

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland with whom he had consultations prior to the formulation of


the changes in regional development policy announced by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I undertook no formal consultations on the matters which were examined in our review of regional policies, but I had the opportunity of discussing various aspects of regional policy with the Scottish Economic Council, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been told in a Parliamentary answer that no consultations took place with foreign industrial interests before the abolition of investment grants? Does he not consider that in view of the previous interest of the Government in attracting investment to Scotland from West Germany it was rank incompetence to change the system of industrial incentives before consulting some of the people who might have been coming here?

Mr. Campbell: We made it clear at least a year before we came to office that we were considering changing the inflexible system of investment grants and replacing it by more use of the Local Employment Acts and tax allowances. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the main anti-regional development measure of recent years was introduced with no warning or consultation at all; namely, S.E.T., which is about to be halved and will be abolished in two years' time.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that probably the best boost for the regional areas would be a complete abolition of S.E.T.? Will he raise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the idea of varying the 50 per cent. across-the-board cut proposed by his right hon. Friend so that it is totally removed in the development areas?

Mr. Campbell: That is an interesting suggestion, which I will make sure my right hon. Friend hears about. The rates of S.E.T. were introduced by the previous Government in three stages. I am delighted that we can cut them in half in one.

Mr. MacArthur: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statements about

S.E.T. and investment allowances are only two of the 61 pledges already carried through by this Government, and does he accept that the fulfilment of those two pledges will bring about a situation in Scotland far more profitable to the country than the miserable employment record achieved by the Labour Party?

Mr. Campbell: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that his arithmetic is correct. The only point is that the number may be increasing during the course of today.

Mr. Ross: Was the Secretary of State consulted by the Chancellor before the change from investment allowances was announced? Does he apreciate that this has been an absolutely disastrous change, recognised as such by everyone concerned, and that the new impetus he announced in October, when it was put forward at a Press conference, is amply exemplified by 122,000 unemployed in Scotland today?

Mr. Campbell: I was one of the architects of this policy as a member of the Shadow Cabinet when the original proposals were published. The right hon. Gentleman criticises the system. His was the system which produced unemployment figures of 93,000 last July, at the height of summer, and before that he was opposed to any change at all.

Rates

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what rate increases have been notified to him for the financial year 1971–72 for the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow; and what percentage increase is represented over the previous year.

Mr. Younger: So far as I am aware, no rate poundages for 1971–72 have yet been fixed by the corporations.

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he expects the rate increases in Scotland to average 14 per cent., as in England and Wales? If that is so, does he agree that his failure to act will be one of a great number of broken pledges that he gave the ratepayers of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: We have no information at this stage to forecast what rate increases may be, but I have on several


occasions made it clear that I hope very much that local authorities, in planning their rate requirements for the coming year, will bear in mind the necessity not to raise any further revenue than they absolutely need.

Housing

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing units require to be built in Scotland to provide sufficient housing of tolerable standards for people living in Scotland; and when he anticipates this need will be fulfilled.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am still awaiting returns from over half of the local housing authorities giving their assessments of the number of houses in their areas which fail to meet the tolerable standard.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 1966 Census figures of housing in Scotland showed that in unfurnished tenancies rented from private persons 25 per cent. of households had to share an inside W.C.; 13·8 per cent. had to share an outside W.C.; 70 per cent. had no fixed bath; and 47 per cent. had no hot water tap? Does he agree that that is a disastrous situation which should be corrected, and that it is far better just to miss the bull's eye of a target than not to have a target to aim at?

Mr. Campbell: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question certainly shows the need for a campaign for more improvements to be done as well as building where required. I disagree with the second part of his question. The last Government proved that to set a target, to hold out hopes to the general public of meeting a certain figure and then to miss it by over 5,000, is worse than having no target.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is supposed to be in the middle of a campaign to improve such houses and that we should have a progress report on it at some stage? Will he consider publishing a White Paper or statement to tell us, when he gets the figures, what the needs are and what progress has been made? Does he recognise that the fall-off in new building is one of the most alarming things in the Scottish housing position?

Mr. Campbell: When the returns are in I will certainly consider the best way of giving the House information about needs in the different areas and Scotland as a whole, as it comes out of them. As to the fall-off in starts, the hon. Gentleman knows better than any of us about this, because it started between 1968 and 1969, when there was a drop of nearly 5,000, followed by a drop of 3,000 between 1969 and 1970.

Dr. Mabon: This is becoming a rather thin alibi. You must be tired of hearing it, Mr. Speaker. The houses in 1968 and 1969 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are built. We are talking now about houses which are to be built or which should be built. The right hon. Gentleman should address himself to 1970 and 1971 instead of going back three years.

Mr. Campbell: But the houses to be completed in 1970–71 are the houses that were started a year or two before that. [Interruption.] The question was about the drop in starts, and I accurately reminded Labour hon. Members, though they may not like it, of when that drop started. We are determined by a combination of public authority building and encouragement of the private sector, by recently lifting the restrictions on local authority mortgage lending, by improvements, by a special subsidy for slum clearance, and in other ways, to get the best possible housing in the places in Scotland where it is needed.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very much under criticism for not getting through sufficient Questions at Question Time. The reason is that right hon. and hon. Members, I think, tend to use it as an opportunity for debate. We should not have debate at Question Time.

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications from landlords were submitted to rent officers in Scotland for rent increases and rejected because of the sub-standard condition of the houses involved.

Mr. Younger: This information is not available, as the reasons for rent officers' decisions are not recorded.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been my experience in my constituency that applications have been submitted by property owners for rent increases on property which has been sub-standard and that, because of intervention by myself and others, the local authorities concerned have been induced to condemn the houses involved? Does not he think it time to instruct rent officers not to accept applications for houses which are not meeting the tolerable standards?

Mr. Younger: It is possible for there to be cases where an application for a rent increase for a house which is substandard is made, and if the present rent for the house is below what the rent officer considers to be reasonable for it, then in spite of its condition this could happen. But I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the procedures for the rent officers are not ones in which anyone should intervene. They do an independent job and they should be left to get on with it.

Fife (Local Government Reform)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from individuals, organisations and local authorities objecting to the division of Fife arising from the reform of local government proposals for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Objections have been received from three individuals, seven organisations, and 12 local authorities, none of which brings out any consideration which has not already been taken into account.

Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trickle of objections now will become a flood in the months to come? Does not he agree that the imposition of toll charges for crossing a road bridge over a river within a region is wrong and an unjust expense for those who have to travel across the river to reach the centre of the region? Will he reconsider his proposals in respect of Fife?

Mr. Campbell: On the question of tolls, the answer is "No". Our reasons for the proposed division of Fife are set

out in paragraph 48 of the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government. The objective evidence makes it clear that on the basis of practical needs and community of interest, South Fife would best be included in the region centred on Edinburgh, and North Fife in the east region. The Wheatley Commission took the same view.

Sir J. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend has granted a separate regional authority to the Borders and he and the Government are fighting against inflation. Does he not agree that, unless he can prove that the breaking-up of Fife brings commensurate financial benefits, it would be a wilful act to put an additional cost on the ratepayers of Fife? Is this not something he should resist?

Mr. Campbell: I agree that financial as well as other considerations must be borne in mind. I remind my hon. Friend that my own county of Moray and Nairn is one of the most efficient in the country but I nevertheless propose that it should be split between two regions also.

Rolls-Royce Sub-contractors

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what official visits he has made to Rolls-Royce sub-contractors in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have made no official visit to any of the firms in Scotland which are known to have undertaken sub-contract work for Rolls-Royce Limited. It is generally known that I am very concerned about the problems facing these sub-contractors.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the figures of the latest redundancies among subcontractors of Rolls-Royce be given in the Government's statement on the RB211 engine tomorrow?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot answer that without notice.

Mr. Dalyell: Why not?

Mr. Campbell: I will certainly pass the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am concerned about this, and the tenor of the current negotiations on the future of the RB211 shows the Government's concern as a whole.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman know who the sub-contractors are?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot be absolutely certain that I know every firm which might be doing something, but I think we have them all.

Home Office Drugs Conference

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by whom he was represented at the Home Office Drugs Conference at Moreton-in-the-Marsh during the week beginning 15th March; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): This conference was held for police officers experienced in drugs squad duties.
My right hon. Friend's Department was represented by the staff officer to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the training of drug squads in drug detection?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Police in Scotland receive introductory training at Tulliallan Police College and more advanced training at the Scottish Detection Training School. During the visits I have made to police forces, I have been impressed by the concern of police officers about this problem and the way they are dealing with it.

Local Government Expenditure

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on its discussions with local authorities regarding the level of future expenditure.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I discussed with the local authority associations the matters covered in my Report on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order, 1971, which we debated in this House on 16th March, and I am about to issue a circular drawing the attention of local authorities to the report.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the rate support grant does not cover housing subsidies? Will he, therefore, in his subsequent

meetings, draw to the attention of the local authorities the fact that the figure of housing subsidies in the 1970s will be £230 million, which will have to be spread over both the public and the private sectors, and that the total effect will be less public housing in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is engaged in consultations with the local authorities on the whole question of housing finance.

Mentally Handicapped Children (Education)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the advice given by his Department on the education of the mentally handicapped.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): The most recent general advice was my right hon. Friend's invitation to education authorities in October to assume responsibility for the education and training of children in mental and mental deficiency hospitals from the beginning of session 1971–72.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting reply. Does he not concede that there is now becoming an obvious need in Scotland for cooperation between the local authorities in establishing some form of centre to give advice and the benefit of experience in up-to-date techniques in assessing the ability of the mentally handicapped?

Mr. Taylor: I will look further into that point, but I understand that the degree of co-operation at present is of a high level.

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the special problem of young people who are mentally ill? Many of them are kept in hospital wards where most of the patients are much older or are geriatric patients. Will he take steps to see that provision is made in many areas for dealing separately with the problems of mentally-ill young persons?

Mr. Taylor: This is a very important problem and I shall be glad to look into any cases of difficulty which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Tobacco (Health Hazards)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the action now to be taken in Scotland to warn of the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Scotland will be associated with all the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in his statement to the House on 16th March. As previously announced, the Scottish Health Education Unit will almost double its anti-smoking activities this year, and will, I hope, make an even stronger impact through the use of television than it did last autumn.—[Vol. 813, c. 1189–98.]

Mr. Sproat: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is the Scottish Office currently commissioning, or carrying out, research into the so-called safe cigarette?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot answer that without notice, but I am not aware of such research at present. I remind my hon. Friend that it was in Scotland last autumn that the first British anti-smoking television advertising was carried out.

Family Planning Advice

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance or guidance is being given to local authorities in Scotland on the provision of family planning advice.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Local authorities now have very wide powers to develop these services according to the needs of their particular areas. Following the guidance given in my right hon. Friend's circular of 10th August, provision has been made in the Rate Support Grant as stated in the debate on the Grant Order on 16th March for arrangements in their areas.

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure me that everything will be done not only to educate the general public in the facilities

available but to educate those local authorities which do not seem to be using the facilities as they might?

Mr. Taylor: The full extent to which the authorities will make use of the wider powers now available to them is not yet fully known, but such reports as I have make it clear that many of them are proposing to provide more comprehensive services.

Mr. David Steel: How many, or what percentage of, local authorities have already decided to make use of these greater facilities?

Mr. Taylor: The number is considerable. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall be glad to give detailed information.

Dr. Miller: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether local authorities intend to provide these facilities themselves, or to provide financial assistance to other organisations to provide the facilities? Will he at some time tell the House about the ramifications of the kind of work which family planning units do?

Mr. Taylor: Local authorities have the power to provide these facilities, or to arrange for them to be provided through an organisation such as the Family Planning Association. If a debate on the subject were initiated, I should be only too glad to provide whatever information hon. Members wished to have.

Meat and Livestock Commission

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider taking steps to insert a Scottish body into the administration of meat production.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Meat and Livestock Commission. I have no reason to believe that Scottish interests are not adequately served through its existing organisation.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is not my hon. Friend aware that Scotland has made a better job of livestock production than has any other country for at least 100 years, and that livestock production is a more important part of Scottish agriculture than English livestock production is


of English agriculture? If a body of this kind is necessary, why not a Scottish body?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This body also performs English functions, and I remind my hon. Friend that it has a very strong Scottish office and two very active Scottish members who do an excellent job looking after the interests of Scottish producers?

Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman ensure that whatever organisation is interposed consumers in Scotland are not fleeced by high prices for meat products by the changes in the levy system and by the present opportunism of livestock producers and butchers?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I remind the hon. Gentleman, in case he does not know, that the Commission has a consumers' committee, on which there is a Scottish member. I assure him that housewives and consumers generally in Scotland have their interests safeguarded by the present Government.

Chain-saw Operators (Vibration Syndrome)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available to him as to the number of chain-saw operators in Scotland who are suffering from the form of vibration effect known as white fingers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The only information available suggests that up to one-third of the Forestry Commission's regular chain-saw operators in Scotland are affected by vibration syndrome in varying degrees. Vibration may be reduced by improved techniques and suitably modified saws; the Commission is introducing both.

Sir J. Gilmour: As there must be much unknown information about chain-saw operators not in the Forestry Commission, would my hon. Friend consider whether some arrangement could be made for an alteration to the chain-saws now in use so as to stop this symptom from developing?

Mr. Taylor: The Forestry Commission has successfully encouraged some saw manufacturers to develop anti-vibration mountings and is replacing its own saws

with suitably modified models. Naturally, we hope that other manufacturers will follow suit.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Surely the hon. Gentleman has made an error by saying "only one-third". He must be very concerned that it is as much as one-third.

Mr. Taylor: Of course I am, and I did not use those words. What I said was "up to one-third".

Coal-burning Fishery Protection Vessels (Replacement)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to replace the coal-burning vessels of the Scottish Fishery Protection Fleet; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One will be replaced later this year by the research vessel "Scotia" when the latter ceases to be required for fisheries research: replacement of the other will depend on decisions to be taken on the future of the protection service in the light of the recommendations of the Cameron Committee.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, in view of our application to join the E.E.C. and as my right hon. and hon. Friends will insist that coastal waters are protected, we shall need very good protection vessels, so that it is essential to replace all coal-burning vessels immediately?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the need to provide proper protection for our fishermen in Scotland, and that is precisely why we are replacing one of these vessels and, when there is an opportunity, will certainly replace the other, too.

Government Offices

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he is taking to ensure that more Government and other public departments move to those parts of Scotland with a surplus of labour.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Government intend to pursue a policy of dispersing Government offices from London. A new study to determine whether further work can be located elsewhere is in


progress. The claims of those parts of Scotland with a surplus of labour will not be overlooked, though I can give no undertaking with regard to particular locations at this stage.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Glenrothes is the only new town in Scotland which does not have an institution such as I suggest should be put into areas like that? In view of the increasing redundancies in Glenrothes, would the right hon. Gentleman look on any request from the Glenrothes Development Corporation with sympathy?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the position in Glenrothes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was made aware of it on the ground when I made a recent visit there. It is something about which I am particularly concerned. I was, of course, involved in the decision of the previous Conservative Government to move the National Savings Bank to Glasgow, and I later attended the opening ceremony.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about income tax centres will affect the proposals for Edinburgh? Secondly, is there any indication that he is carrying on the work to get the Forestry Commission moved from England to Scotland, which we were about to effect?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary told the House on 7th December that the Government had instituted a review of the Inland Revenue mechanisation programme, and in that context work on all the computer centres, except those already under construction, is being suspended for the time being. We have one already at East Kilbride, of course, and it is still having some teething troubles with taxpayers. Moving the Forestry Commission is a hypothetical question at present.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that national policy is to reduce the bureaucracy, especially in England, and that there are eight times as many Sassenachs as Scots? Would he bear in mind that it would be wholly improper to reduce bureaucracy south of the Border only to increase it north of

the Border in places like Glenrothes, and that I would strongly disapprove of that?

Mr. Campbell: I can reassure my hon. Friend, because we can achieve both objectives; that is to say, by reducing bureaucracy in England and transferring to Scotland, we can end with a lower total.

Construction Industry

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to increase employment in the construction industry.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I brought forward £1·75 million of essential public works into the past winter; I am urging local authorities which have a need for new housebuilding to submit proposals; and I am launching a campaign to stimulate house improvement. More generally, the Budget proposals introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should help employment in the industry, as should also the lifting of restrictions on local authorities lending for mortgages.

Mr. Hamilton: How can the right hon. Gentleman be so damnably complacent about this matter? Does he not recognise that the latest figure of unemployment in the building industry is more than 26,000? Has he not seen the figures on the front pages of the Glasgow Herald today showing that the unemployed are not only unskilled but include large numbers of skilled people, from plumbers to building electricians and others? Is it not an absolute outrage that at a time when the housing problem is so urgent in Scotland this number of men, women and boys should be denied an opportunity to make a contribution to the solution of the problem?

Mr. Campbell: I am not in the least complacent. I deplore the situation which the hon. Gentleman has described, and I blame the last Government, which departed from office last June when they could have been in office up to this month. The halving of S.E.T. should now help the construction industry as much as any other measure which could be taken at present, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the road programme in Scotland should certainly expand during this financial year.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Does not the Secretary of State realise that in the Glasgow area recruitment is already going on among the 8,000 people in the building industry who are unemployed and that they are being recruited to build houses in parts of England which are already comparatively well off for housing? Is not this a commentary on the disgraceful misuse of resources at one end of the country where the need is much less while there is a great need at the other end? Should not something be done quickly to expand the housebuilding programme in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my original reply, he will see that that is what I said.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Civil Servants

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants, industrial and non-industrial, are employed in the Scottish Office; and how these figures compare with those for last year.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The numbers at 1st March, 1970, were 8,146 non-industrials and 942 industrials. At 1st March, 1971, there were 8,327 and 958 respectively. The latter numbers are below those authorised by the previous Government for 1st April, 1971.

Mr. Lipton: Apart from a vast Ministerial superstructure, do not these figures and the increase announced by the right hon. Gentleman reveal that Scotland must be the most expensively governed country in the world—

Mr. William Hamilton: Misgoverned.

Mr. Lipton: —in view of the meager results disclosed in all the answers to Questions today?

Mr. Campbell: No, Sir.

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (Orthodontic Treatment)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities for orthodontic treatment are presently

available at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Only consultative facilities are at present available in the orthodontic clinic at Victoria Hospital, and patients requiring treatment travel to Edinburgh. The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board is considering how the premises, equipment and staff at the clinic can be expanded to enable treatment facilities to be provided at Kirkcaldy.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this problem has been under consideration for quite a number of years and that there are a large number of children who have to travel to Edinburgh, which is expensive both in parents' time and in money? Would he not consider directing the hospital board to use the empty facilities in the orthopaedic hospital to provide the necessary orthodontic services?

Mr. Taylor: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has been pressing this matter for a considerable time. The decision is really for the hospital board, which has decided that treatment facilities should be provided and is considering how this can be done.

Travelling People (Sites)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's advice to local authorities concerning the administration of sites for use by gypsies and other travelling people.

Mr. Younger: In a recent circular my right hon. Friend drew authorities attention to the relevant recommendations in the report on "Scotland's Travelling People", and to the grants being made available to local authorities in this connection, adding that his Department would be glad to supplement the advice about the administration of sites.

Mr. MacArthur: Has my hon. Friend received any reaction from the travelling people to his proposals? Does he share my belief that there will be a wide welcome for this positive response to their problems?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I am glad to


be able to tell him the Travellers Liaison Committee has warmly welcomed the new proposals made by my right hon. Friend. I am certain that with good will on all sides this may herald a new era for the travelling people.

Mr. James Hamilton: Can the hon. Member give me the assurance that he will expedite any request for assistance he may receive from Lanarkshire County Council with regard to the two sites it has made available? Is he aware that literally every weekend when I go back to my constituency I am bogged down with this problem over Bellshill and that local councillors tell me that it is because of the inactivity of the Scottish Office that they are not able to deal with this?

Mr. Younger: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no information at all to suggest that my Office is any way behindhand in helping with these matters. If there are any problems which the Lanarkshire County Council would like sorted out, it is welcome to come to my Department, and also to Lord Birsay's Advisory Committee, which ought to be able to help, too.

Secondary Teachers

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make a further statement about the shortage of secondary teachers in 1972–73 and in the years immediately thereafter.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend hopes to do so before the end of this year when various studies being undertaken by his Department have been completed.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that although recent figures show there may have been a welcome but marginal improvement in the position, some questions must be asked about the seriousness of his belief that we can responsibly raise the school-leaving age throughout Scotland in the light of the serious teacher shortage in certain areas?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend rightly says that the figures which my right hon. Friend gave in an answer on 29th March are very encouraging. The position is that most education authorities should have little difficulty in coping with the demands imposed by the raising of the

age but I recognise that a few of them are likely to have serious problems. I will do all I can to see that the understaffed areas get a fair share of the increased supply of teachers.

Mr. Buchan: Surely the hon. Member realises that nowhere in Scotland is there any sense, in educational circles, that the Government are seized of the importance of this problem? Is he relying on the mounting unemployment figures, especially among graduates and skilled workers, to supply the deficiency? How many have applied since the Rolls-Royce crisis for admission to Jordanhill Training College?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's question is outrageous. We have inherited a situation in which we have a serious teacher shortage. We have taken many steps to help. As for the hon. Member's question about Rolls-Royce, he must be aware of the endeavours made by the Department to harness all the energies and skills which will be available.

East Fife (Regional Road)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the need for an early start on building the new regional road in East Fife, if he will now give a firm commencement date.

Mr. Younger: Preliminary surveys for this scheme are in progress: until they are completed its priority cannot be finally determined.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing reply? In view of the Government's disastrous change in regional development policy, which has caused a considerable run-down in the number of new industries coming to Fife, will be regard the making of the East Fife regional road as a first priority and issue the necessary order at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Younger: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no hold-up in the process of preparing for this road. Preliminary surveys have involved the survey of 12½ miles of countryside much of which is over ground liable to subsidence and very difficult from the road construction point of view. I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no delay in putting forward these procedures. As


soon as these are complete, we shall be able to establish when and how the road can be completed.

Agricultural Price Review

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the total Exchequer support for agriculture under the 1971 Price Review he estimates will go to hill and upland farmers in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No precise estimates can be made of the proportion of Exchequer support going to particular classes of farmers. Hill and upland farmers are estimated to get £14·2 million in specific hill farming subsidies in 1971–72 in addition to a share of the other capital and production grants and deficiency payments.

Mr. Baker: While welcoming the additional cash flow that will result from the last Price Review, particularly in the hill areas, may I ask my hon. Friend to give the House an assurance that this is but a first step towards improving the productivity of these vital areas in the uplands of Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that producers in the hill and upland areas have an important part to play in the total agricultural production. What took place in the Price Review is proof of our endeavour to help them.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister believe that the cuts in the lime and fertiliser subsidy, the ending of grants to pest clearance societies and the charges for what was formerly free technical assistance to the industry in the hill and upland areas will assist productivity and production in those areas?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would like the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge the fact that the award for sheep producers in this Review is the biggest single award ever made. I would also invite him to read some of the comments by farmers in the hill and upland areas. Then I think he will take back some of the things he has said.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what expansion he has in mind for Scottish agriculture as a result of the 1971 Price Review.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the effect of the 1971 Price Review on the agricultural industry in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The determinations at the 1971 Annual Review are designed to provide the resources and the confidence necessary for expansion of agriculture in Scotland, in particular the production of meat and cereals.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a most excellent review for agriculture. Do the Government have any plans in mind about the need to stop the constant drift from the land which has gone on for so long?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Judging from the comments in Scotland about the review, it seems to have received a very general welcome. The measures we are taking to increase the prosperity of Scottish agriculture generally should help to deal with the problem of the drift from the land.

Mr. William Hamilton: If it was such a splendid review, why did the National Farmers Union just note it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not read all the agricultural journals or go to all the agricultural meetings, even in his constituency. I suggest that if he did that for a week or two he might change his view.

European Economic Community

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received, from which bodies, and what replies he has sent, concerning the implications of the European Economic Community fisheries policy should the United Kingdom join the Common Market.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list of bodies from which my right hon. Friend has received representations on this subject since 13th January. The replies have emphasised the Government's awareness of the problems which could arise and the fact that the United Kingdom position was reserved at the outset


of our entry negotiations in June last year.

Mr. Baker: But does not my hon. Friend realise that the Government's reservation of our position is very cold comfort to the fishermen? Can he assure us that before steps are taken to enter the Common Market the Government will give assurances that the fishery limits will be inviolate?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I remind my hon. Friend that at this stage we are not in any way committed to the common fisheries policy of the Six. I assure him that we shall do everything we can to protect the interests of the inshore fishing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Referring to the second part of the Question, will the hon. Gentleman seek to make more widely known precisely what the E.E.C. fishing regulations are, because, as I understand them, even if we adhered to them, we would still be able to prevent trawling within our fishing bank areas?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We are at present studying the effects of the E.E.C. regulations in detail and we shall try to inform the industry as we go along. We have already made a lot of information available to the fishermen's associations and to others who have asked for it.

Mr. Maclennan: Why are the Government taking so long to complete the study? Surely the regulations are perfactly clear and their application is easily understood. What we and the entire fishing industry in Scotland want to know is not that the Government are studying the problem but that they have some solutions to put forward.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What we are concerned about is the application of the regulations to ourselves and the other applicant countries. That matter requires a great deal of study. The Government reserved their position last June, long before the hon. Gentleman showed any concern for the problems of the inshore fishermen.

Following is the list of bodies making representations to the Secretary of State about the E.E.C. common fisheries policy:


Federation of Highlands and Islands Councils of Social Service.
Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland.
White Fish Authority.
Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association and Scottish Herrine Producers' Association.
Cockenzie and Port Seton Town Council.
Oban Town Council.
Girvan Town Council.
Buckie Town Council.
Lossiemouth Town Council.
Arbroath Town Council
Ayr Town Council.
Inverness County Council.
Aberdeen County Council.
Peterhead Town Council.
Peterhead Harbour Trustees.

West Central Scotland Special Development Area

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities in Ayrshire regarding exclusion of parts of Ayrshire from the special development area for West Central Scotland; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have received letters on this subject from the town councils of Kilmarnock and Galston. The replies have explained that the unemployment and other problems of the areas designated are significantly greater than those elsewhere in West Central Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Questions which I have been asking the Department of Employment, the last one being on 25th March? He will discover that in the exchange areas of Kilmarnock, Ayr and Cumnock the unemployment figure is between 4,000 and 5.000 and is still rising, and that it is higher than in the contiguous areas of Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Ayrshire which are included in the special development area. It is nonsensical to leave out the industrial centre of Ayrshire, which employs many people from a wide surrounding area. Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter?

Mr. Campbell: The boundary of the special development area was drawn with considerable care. The S.D.A. is very large and includes the areas of the Glasgow conurbation which are most in need


of jobs. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not being critical of one of the most far-reaching and speedy measures of regionial development in Scotland for many years.

Mr. Ross: There is a male unemployment rate of over 8 per cent. in the Ayr employment exchange area, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give the latest information on the teachers' wage negotiations.

Mr. Edward Taylor: As the hon. Member will be aware, the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee has agreed that teachers' salaries should be increased by 81 per cent. with effect from 1st April.

Mr. Hamilton: The organisations which represent the teachers are saying that this is an interim award and they feel that, bearing in mind the very serious shortage of teachers, particularly in secondary schools, they have been let down as in many cases private industry can give increases of 17 per cent.? Will the situation be rectified as quickly as possible?

Mr. Taylor: This is an agreement, and it is only fair to point out that Scottish teachers' pay has risen by about 25 per cent. in just over a year. It was a condition of the management side's offer that the next general review of salaries should not take effect earlier than 1st April next year.

Lanarkshire (Primary Schools)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what request he has received from the Lanarkshire Education Authority for its share of the £4 million allocation for primary school replacements; and what is his decision.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend has still to receive details of the projects which Lanarkshire Education Authority wishes to be considered.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the very serious position concerning primary

school building in Lanarkshire, has the closing date of 31st March, which the hon. Gentleman gave me before, been extended? If not, will the hon. Gentleman get in touch with the Lanarkshire local authority in the interests of the children in various parts of the county to ensure that, for a change, it measures up to its responsibilities?

Mr. Taylor: There have been various difficulties—the postal strike, to mention one. We have been keeping closely in touch with the authorities concerned. I can give an assurance that Lanarkshire's application, when it comes, will be considered along with the others. There will be no discrimination.

Ministers (Broadcasts)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to Ministers in his Department about official broadcasts by them.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: To discuss clearly and frankly Government policy.

Mr. Steel: Is there a new practice of allowing junior Ministers at the Scottish Office to appear on programmes, other than to make official broadcasts, in which they digress on matters in general? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman explain it to the House?

Mr. Campbell: It is not new. It was carried out—I was one of those concerned with it—by the Government who were in office up to 1964.

Peel Hospital

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money will be spent on improvements to Peel Hospital over the next five years.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Schemes at present in the regional board's programme involve expenditure of about £76.000 during the period April, 1971, to March, 1976.

Mr. Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is very important that as quick a decision as possible is taken about a starting date for the new hospital,


and that Peel Hospital is so sub-standard that it will require substantial sums of money over the next few years until the new hospital is built?

Mr. Taylor: The programme of major hospital building projects to start from 1972–73 onwards already includes provision for a development of about 90 geriatric beds and central services to start on the site for the new district general hospital. Any review of this programme arising from the additional allocation is not likely to provide for additional phases of this hospital.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ministerial and Civil Service Salaries

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service (1) what action he proposes to take to change the situation whereby 6,000 civil servants receive salaries above those received by junior Ministers, who are Ministerially superior to these civil servants, some with salaries of up to £9,000 per annum as against the junior Minister's £3,750;

(2) what action he proposes to take to change the situation whereby 220 civil servants, holding positions junior to the Minister in control of their Departments, receive salaries in excess of their Minister, some with salaries which, in July, 1971, will be £14,000 per annum against the Minister's £8,500 per annum.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced on 4th December, 1970, the whole question of the emoluments, allowances, expenses and pensions of Ministers and Members of the House of Commons will be investigated by the new Review Body on higher level salaries in the public sector. The same body is to review the pay of senior civil servants.—[Vol. 807, c. 1723–4.]

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman (aware that 1that has been the usual evasive reply that we have received over the past two years? In view of the facts contained in both these Questions—and I speak as a trade unionist with three trade union cards—may I ask the hon. Member whether he can see any good trade

unionist accepting the principle whereby the officer in charge of a Department should be receiving a third of the salary received by those over whom he has control? Surely this is something that has been known for years and there is no need for a review body? When can we have an announcement about this review body which was mentioned two years ago by his predecessor? Will he get cracking and get something done?

Mr. Howell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's zest in pursuing these matters, but they are for the Review Body. He asks whether an announcement will be made. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making an announcement tomorrow.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that procrastination and pious protestation every time Questions are answered is most frustrating? Does he understand that we have Ministers at £8,500 a year appointing heads of nationalised industries at £25,000 a year and civil servants at £14,000 a year and parliamentary draftsmen at four times the salary I receive? Where on earth is a parliamentary draftsmen to be found who is worth four times what I get?

Mr. Howell: These are all value judgments on which different people have different views. The Review Body will be set up and will take due account of the need for speed. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make an announcement tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the fact that we have been told that something will happen but it never does, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

CYNHEIDRE COLLIERY (ACCIDENT)

Mr. Denzil Davies: Mr. Denzil Davies (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he would make a statement regarding the disaster which occurred yesterday at the Cynheidre colliery when six miners lost their lives and 25 were injured.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): The House will be distressed to hear of the accident at Cynheidre colliery


in which six miners were killed and 25 injured. Thanks to the efforts of the rescue teams, all men are accounted for. I am glad to say that the injured are making good recovery; with possibly one exception, all have been or will shortly be discharged from hospital.
The accident, which is believed to have been caused by an outburst of gas and coal, will be fully investigated by H.M. Inspectors of Mines and Quarries with the co-operation of the National Coal Board and the trade unions concerned.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I were speaking for the whole House when we sent our deepest sympathy to the relatives, friends and colleagues of the victims.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to make a statement at such short notice.
Before I endorse the hon. Gentleman's expressions of sympathy, may I urge on him and his Department the need to ensure not only that the proposed inquiry is far reaching, but also that every effort is made to accelerate the research which is going on at Cynheidre colliery into the causes of these so-called gas blowouts? If we could find out what are the real causes of these blow-outs, we might be able to devise some adequate safety precautions. I hope that the Department will give every assistance to the Coal Board to enable it to carry out these researches.
I am sure that the whole House wishes to endorse the hon. Gentleman's expressions of profound sympathy at this tragic occurrence, especially with the families and dependants of the men who have died in this accident. We have heard that 25 miners are still injured. We can only hope that their recovery will be complete and that they do not suffer any consequences from their terrible and traumatic experience.
I want also to endorse the Minister's tribute to all those who assisted in the rescue operation. I have been told that if it had not been for the prompt and selfless action of the rescuers an even greater tragedy might have occurred.
Unfortunately, accidents of this kind are not uncommon in mining areas. We can only hope on these occasions that such accidents serve to remind us that

the cost of coal is very high, as they remind us of the tremendous courage and bravery of men who burrow in the bowels of the earth to recover this important source of power which is to vital to the well being of the community.
Perhaps the best way in which we can show our sympathy is to see to it that the widows and dependants of these men are generously and compassionately treated by using the power of this House to try to repay a little part of the heavy and accumulating debt that we as a community owe our miners and their families.

Sir J. Eden: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the efforts of the rescue teams. I am sure that he is right in what he said.
He raised the matter of research. As I am sure he knows, this problem of out-burst is a very strange phenomenon. The exact cause of it is still not yet understood. Research has been going on for a very long time. It is taking place very effectively at the Great Mountain research area in West Wales under the auspices of the National Coal Board. The Divisional Inspector of Mines is the chairman of the committee which is supervising the research. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman also knows, the site of the work being done in West Wales is frequently visited by engineers from other countries where this phenomenon also occasionally occurs. That shows the extent to which we are leading in this research.
Obviously we await the results of the investigation by H.M. Inspectors. I shall then have to consider whether a special report or a public inquiry is needed. Before deciding that, I must await further information.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Denzil Davies) has said, and I crave the indulgence of the House to express my sympathy in view of the fact that three of the miners killed were my constituents. I know that there is great sorrow in the Gwendraeth and Amman valleys, the mining area in which I was horn and bred.
May I ask the Minister about the research unit set up at Cynheidre Colliery in 1958? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us


how many people are employed in this unit and whether he envisages any additional measures being required to assist the unit's endeavour to overcome the problem which has occurred from time to time in the anthracite area of South Wales and other parts of the country?
I want also to endorse the view expressed by my hon. Friend about the rescuers. I rang the union's branch secretary last night and he paid tribute lo them and to the many miners who, after recovering consciousness, went back to help bring out others. This is a manifestation of the great comradeship that there is in our mining communities. It deserves our great admiration.

Sir J. Eden: I cannot give the exact information about the numbers actually employed. I can confirm that the phenomenon occurs in this valley area and is due, one assumes, to the geological conditions there. The work which has been done already has been designed to ensure the provision of all possible safety precautions to safeguard against any anticipated development of this kind, but obviously they cannot guard against totally unforeseen events of the kind which took place in this instance.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: As the only remaining member of the National Union of Mineworkers in this House from South Wales and having spent the greater part of my life in the mining industry, may I express my sympathy on behalf of all miners to the relatives and friends of those who have died and the fervent hope that those injured will soon achieve a complete recovery? May I say, too, how pleased I am that once again the rescue operations were so magnificent, as they have been in all previous mining accidents? It is greatly to the credit of those miners who went back to try to help those less fortunate than themselves.
I thank the Minister for his prompt statement that an inquiry will be held. Will he assure the House that when it has been concluded a thorough investigation into this problem will be undertaken? In an industry where this danger is constantly present, something must be done to make the job safer. I hope that the Minister will devote much of his atten-

tion towards this end. The miners of Britain will be grateful.

Sir J. Eden: In case there is any misunderstanding, obviously before I can determine whether there should be a special report or a public inquiry I must have further information from the inspectors. But I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. What has happened emphasises the hazardous nature of the occupation itself, but the way that the rescue teams responded gives an indication of the spirit of teamwork which inspires all those engaged in it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for the week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:—
MONDAY, 19TH APRIL—Supply (14th Allotted Day): There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Coinage Bill [Lords], the Attachment of Earnings Bill [Lords], the National Savings Bank Bill [Lords] and the Rent (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.
TUESDAY, 20TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST APRIL—Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
Remaining stages of the four Consolidation Measures.
THURSDAY, 22ND APRIL—Supply (15th Allotted Day): The topic to be debated will be announced later.
FRIDAY, 23RD APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that while we welcome


the fact that he will obviously be very accommodating about the amount of time for debating the Health Regulations and associated subjects, to put on a major Bill of such doctrinaire qualities as the Cumberland area Bill on the Tuesday after we come back means that we shall start on the Scottish business on, in our view, another extremely bad Bill rather late in the evening, and he will not expect the outcome of that debate until a pretty late hour?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I should like to have found time for the extra debate on the Health Service charges in this week, but it was not possible to find a mutually convenient time. However, I undertake to give half a day to a debate on the Prayers in the week starting 26th April.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Education (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps I might be permitted the reflection that almost everything which could be said on that Bill has already been said.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sorry to get up a second time. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that that Bill will be coming before the vast majority of hon. Members for the first time, most of whom have had no opporunity of expressing the very strong views which they may feel about it. I do not know whether they will get an opportunity. This Bill affects the whole House, not just the Scottish Committee which has been considering it. Therefore, however much the right hon. Gentleman may be in a pre-holiday mood, I hope that he will think again about the words which he has used.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I shall be interested to see whether some of the English Members opposite, or, indeed, on this side of the House, have the temerity to take part in a Scottish debate.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion No. 510 standing in the names of hon. Members on both sides and of myself?

[That this House believes that matters essential to the future prosperity of the British fishing industry such as the access to coastal waters, grading, minimum prices and the importation of fish fillets

should be negotiated with the European Economic Community prior to Parliament being asked to approve British entry.]

As there is a great deal of disquiet on the question of Britain's entry into the Common Market, particularly with regard to fishing, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that time will be found at an early date for a debate on this important subject?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that my hon. Friend will have heard the reply which was given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter. I appreciate the importance of this subject. It is naturally considered in the wider context. I cannot give an assurance that there will be a separate debate on it, but I shall keep the position in mind.

Mr. Lawson: Reverting to Tuesday's business, is the Leader of the House aware that the Education (Scotland) Bill is the major Bill to come from Scotland in this Session? Is it not an insult to the people of Scotland that a Bill of such importance should be brought on after the licensing Bill—probably at 10 o'clock at night? Will the right hon. Gentleman think again and give us at least a full day for the Report stage and Third Reading of this major Bill coming from Scotland in this Session?

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am bound to say that this is a comparatively short Bill. I should think that the business announced was reasonable and I should like to stick to it.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for at last finding time for the Shipbuilding Industry Bill. I hope, having waited so long, that we shall have a very good Bill.
I should also like to ask whether my right hon. Friend will find time for a debate on the fishing industry, which has been put forward in a Motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) and other hon. Members, because this is important to the Northern Region as well as to other fishing ports.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has said. I am glad that I have been able to produce


the Shipbuilding Industry Bill as I promised, this week. I note what my hon. hon. Friend says about a debate on the fishing industry. I cannot add to what I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has got his priorities upside down? Is he further aware that to put the interests of the brewers before those of the Welsh people —[Interruption.]—the Scottish and no doubt the English people, is another injustice? The Leader of the House has long promised a debate on the Floor of the House on Welsh affairs. Will he drop his brewers' proposal and give us an opportunity to debate Welsh affairs?

Mr. Whitelaw: While I do not wish to enter into the merits at business question time, I think that I might reasonably refer to this Bill, in which I have a particular interest which practically no other hon. Member in this House has—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Whitelaw: —as very few hon. Members have. If anybody considers it to be a brewers' Bill, I should say that it was better described as a taxpayers' Bill because of the better position in which it will put them thereafter. As for Welsh Members, they are not involved in this debate.

Mr. Onslow: In case there is any truth in reports that the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry are to be increased, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can assure the House that he will look into Questions to this Department so that important matters like Concorde are not lost sight of altogether?

Mr. Whitelaw: When changes are announced of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, naturally I am prepared, as always, to consider the position of the Question roster through the usual channels and with individual Members as well.

Mr. Wallace: Has the Leader of the House seen Motion No. 505 dealing with the increased cost of basic foods in the City of Norwich during the month of March which have risen by 3 per cent.?

[That this House notes that costs of basic foods in the city of Norwich have risen during the month of March by three per cent., bearing in mind that East Anglia has one of the lowest average wages in England and that unemployment has considerably increased; and, mindful of the hardship that such increases in prices will cause to many sections of the community, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into price margins in East Anglia.]

This is a grievous hardship in an area of low average wages and increasing unemployment. In view of this hardship, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give us a little time to discuss this very important issue?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted the Motion on the Order Paper. I thought that many of these matters could be discussed during the debate on the Budget last week, which seems to have had a rather different effect from what the terms of the Motion suggest.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for his right hon. Friend to make a statement or, better still, to arrange for a debate on the possible closure of the Stranraer rail link? This is causing considerable concern not only in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland are to some extent dependent on that rail link with Scotland because of the dangerous state of our economy and the exorbitant increases in air fares.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend to what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot guarantee that a statement will be made at the present time.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I make a helpful suggestion? I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might reverse the business on Tuesday so that we take the Education (Scotland) Bill first and then the pubs Bill after closing hours, because, like many other hon. Members, I have not yet opened my mouth on the Education (Scotland) Bill and I very much want to do so on Tuesday.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the attraction of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I should like to maintain the business as it stands.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when we shall discuss the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Local Government?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say today, but I appreciate the importance of being able to say so at a reasonably early date.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that the Minister for the Civil Service today said that the Prime Minister is to make a statement tomorrow about the Review Body which is to be appointed to investigate the salaries of the higher-paid State civil servants and the poorer-paid Members of Parliament. As this body will obviously want to know the views of Members of Parliament on this most important subject, could he arrange a day for debate, or at least half a day, if not in the first week after we return at least before the committee starts its proceedings?

Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making an announcement tomorrow about the chairmen of the top salaries Review Body, to which I have undertaken that the salaries of Ministers and Members of Parliament will be referred—

Mr. Lewis: That is the wrong name.

Mr. Whitelaw: That, if I may say so, is what this body is called, and I undertook that Ministers' and Members' salaries—without going into whether or not they were in that category—would be referred to that body. That was the promise which I made in answer to the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) before Christmas. I also undertake that as soon as this chairman has been appointed I will discuss with him the possible terms of reference, which I will also discuss through the usual channels and, indeed, with any other hon. Members who are interested in the matter. The best way to proceed, I think—although we had better see what the chairman and the board feel—would be, as I suspect he would wish, that all right hon. and hon. Members who wish to give evidence to this body should be able to do so.

Mr. Moate: Would my right hon. Friend recognise that an unsatisfactory position exists over the question of a statement on the siting of a third London airport? I appreciate that the Government are not responsible for what appears in the Press—or not always—but he will have seen reports that a statement is expected this week. He will appreciate that this is a subject which threatens the very homes of many people and that uncertainty in this context is to be deplored. Why should there be any secrecy about finding out whether statements are likely to be made? Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether a statement is expected soon, and exactly when?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is no secrecy about finding out when statements are to be made. Last Thursday, when asked about this subject, I said that it was unlikely that a statement would be made this week. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have noted that in the event I have been proved correct—a statement will not be made this week. I cannot, at the moment, say when it will be made, but it will be very soon after Easter.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman is a little misinformed about the Education (Scotland) Bill which is to be discussed on Tuesday. Although small, it contains a vast and important principle. There is no immediate urgency for this Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the rumours that it is connected with the May elections in Glasgow. Can this Bill not be postponed, at least until the next week? If not, if we are still discussing it in the early hours, can we expect an adjournment of the debate so that it can be continued in the proper way the following week?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should have thought that this Bill has been taking its course through the House. It has now come to a stage, some time after it has finished its Committee stage, when it would be perfectly reasonable to put it down for its remaining stages to be taken. This has been done. I think that it is reasonable, and I should like to see how we get on.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: When my right hon. Friend has the Welsh and the Scots behind him, will he consider giving time for a debate on the arts?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was not aware that I had either the Welsh or the Scots behind me, judging from what they have been saying. I cannot guarantee a debate on the arts in the near future, but I recognise the importance of the subject.

Mr. Ross: Would the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind about this? He will appreciate that the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill affects Scotland, too—in respect of both Gretna and Invergordon—so Scots will be tied up with that controversial Bill as well. It is wrong to start after 10 o'clock on a major controversial Bill like the Education (Scotland) Bill and make up our minds that we are going on to the end. This is not the way to do business. Would the right hon. Gentleman have a look at how we are going on and he prepared at a suitable time to move the adjournment? This is what happened under the last Government with a similar Bill.

Mr. Whitelaw: I still feel that the business as put down is reasonable, and I should like to see how we get on.

Mr. Rost: In view of the continuing public concern about price increases in the nationalised industries and the public sector—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the private."]—would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to consider arranging a debate on the Government's policy towards the nationalised industries' financing and price increases?

Mr. Whitelaw: We have had some debates on these subjects. I cannot guarantee one in the near future.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind, in view of the pressure which is being exerted on him to give time for a variety of matters, that the one matter which has been before him and, indeed, the previous Government for three and a half years, and which is now getting more and more urgent, is a consideration of and a decision on the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and that among many other things which require to be put right is the present situation whereby a letter written by an hon. Member to a Minister criticising the conduct or the efficiency of a body for which that Minister is responsible is still not covered under the privileges of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I realise the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There is a problem of implementing this, and I have promised in the past that the House should have the opportunity of deciding whether or not it wishes to implement the Report of the Select Committee. The other point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, about letters, is very complicated and difficult. I recognise that the House should certainly apply its mind to this matter.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now that we have had an opportunity to look at the White Paper on commercial broadcasting we regard it as neither fish, nor fowl nor good red meat, but a piece of doctrinaire Toryism which we on this side do not accept at all? We are totally opposed to the concept. Will the right hon. Gentleman provide us with an early opportunity to discuss this White Paper?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will not follow the hon. Member into the merits of the proposal. Naturally, time will be found to debate this White Paper. I cannot at the moment say when this will be.

Mr. Bob Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman reflect again on the words which he used about the brewers' Bill, namely, "I am one of the few Members with a direct interest in it"? I would have thought that many hon. Members on this side would certainly want to attack the Second Reading of this vicious and doctrinaire Tory Bill. Equally, I would have thought that there might be hon. Members of the Conservative Party representing brewing interests who would like to express their gratitude to the Government for this sell-out to the brewers.

Mr. Whitelaw: Nothing which the hon. Gentleman says has in any way contradicted the point which I made. I said that I was one of the few Members who had a direct interest, in that this particular State management scheme operates in my constituency, and very few hon. Members can say that. To that extent, my point was absolutely correct. I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into the merits. If other hon. Members wish to take part in this argument one way or the other, that is perfectly reasonable, but I still do not think that it in any way contradicts my assertion about my own direct interest in the matter. The


only thing which I am sad about is that, for obvious reasons, I shall not have the opportunity to take part in the debate—as I would very much like to do.

Mr. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the subject of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), has now become tedious? Is he aware that, if he applies his mind to it, he will find a considerable amount in the Report which requires legislation and which need not bother us at the moment? But there is quite a degree of it, including the question raised by my right hon. Friend, which could merely be incorporated into the general Orders of the House and should not take too much time. But we might run into another case which would take the Select Committee a long time, with great hardship to hon. Members. There is an element of urgency in this.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge and experience in these matters I fully recognise. I should like to proceed in this, because I have the same interest as both right hon. Members in making sure that the whole question of privileges and of the operations of the Select Committee is conducted on the best possible basis. I will certainly see what I can do to that end.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the report in The Times that some of the protest groups opposed to the Roskill Commission's recommendations in respect of the siting of the third London airport have been financed by a vested interest concerned with the Foulness site, will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for further debate before the Government reach a decision?

Mr. Whitelaw: I read the report, but I am afraid I cannot give such an assurance. I have already undertaken that the Government will make a statement on their decision very soon after Easter.

Mr. Millan: Could we have a statement tomorrow on the latest position regarding Rolls-Royce, even though I appreciate that it must to some extent be an interim statement; but this is a very important matter.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the importance of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, it might be diffi-

cult for a statement, even an interim one, to be made in present circumstances, but I will investigate the position.

Mr. Money: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of allowing time for the House to debate the Ashby report on environmental pollution?

Mr. Whitelaw: I realise the importance of the subject, but I cannot say when it will be possible to debate that report.

FARLEY HOSPITAL (INQUIRY)

Mr. Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the reply this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Social Services to my Written Question No. 252, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
the urgent need, in the light of the report on Farley Hospital published today, to give further support to patients and staff of hospitals for the mentally handicapped".
The importance and urgency of this subject is shown on every page of this report. Its findings are most disturbing and call for urgent action by the authorities concerned and, in particular, for the appointment without delay of a health commissioner; the provision of alternative care and accommodation for many patients in these hospitals; the strengthening of staffs; the developing and applying of guidelines for handling difficult or violent patients, preferably on the lines of the report recently presented to the Minister by the National Association for Mental Health.
This matter is particularly urgent because the events at Farley Hospital could be repeated at any time in many other hospitals for the mentally handicapped which are suffering the same conditions of shortage. The case seems to me to be further strengthened by the regrettable failure of the Secretary of State to make his statement to the House orally so that it could be questioned.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely


the urgent need, in the light of the report on Farley Hospital published today, to give further support to patients and staff of hospitals for the mentally handicapped".
The hon. Member was courteous enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this matter. The House is already familiar with the terms of the Standing Order, to which I frequently refer the House. I have considered this matter and I am afraid that, regretfully, I cannot submit the application to the House.

Dr. Summerskill: Further to that point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) specifically makes a request to the Minister to give an Oral Answer on this vitally important committee of inquiry and its report for the Minister to refuse such a request?

Mr. Speaker: In regard to the rules of order, certainly such a refusal is in order. This is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Minister. I have no jurisdiction in such a matter.

DEBATES (CALLING OF MEMBERS)

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the matter of the rights of an hon. Member to take part in a particular debate. Like other hon. Members, I have been trying for some time to take part in debates and have failed to catch your eye, and, of course, I appreciate your position, Mr. Speaker. On the Immigration Bill I intended to abstain and I thought it right to give my reasons to the House, but again I failed to catch your eye. I accepted that decision with grace, although I do not accept the argument that as I have no coloured constituents in Down, North, I should join the end of the queue.
Yesterday during the debate on Northern Ireland, I sat in the Chamber for six hours of the debate anxious to take part. I left the Chamber for only ten minutes or a quarter of an hour to get a cup of tea. Two other Ulster Unionists took part in the debate and three hon. Members from Northern Ireland were called. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite are as anxious to sustain the rights of backbenchers as I am.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order. However, it is a point for which I have some sympathy. One of the hon. Member's hon. Friends spoke for 32 minutes and another for 19 minutes. In such circumstances the Chair finds itself in great difficulty. Certainly the Chair would like to call every hon. Member who wishes to take part in a debate, but this depends on the self-discipline of hon. and right hon. Members. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Member.

BILL PRESENTED

INVESTMENT AND BUILDING GRANTS

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Sir John Eden, Mr. Patrick Jenkin and Mr. Anthony Grant presented a Bill to preclude, subject to certain exceptions, the making of grants under Part I of the Industrial Development Act 1966 in respect of expenditure incurred on or after 27th October 1970; to make further provision with respect to grants under section 3 of the Local Employment Act 1960; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [LORDS]

Ordered, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL [LORDS]

Ordered, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

HOUSE OF LORDS (DEBARMENT OF SECRETARIES OF STATE)

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the holders of the offices of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Secretary of State for the Environment, Secretary of State for Education and Science, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Secretary of State for Social Services and Secretary of State for Defence shall not be Members of the House of Lords.
A couple of sentences are adequate to move this Ten-Minute Bill relating to the debarment of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords. It rests on the simple proposition that the political heads of great Departments of State, who may be chairmen of important and key committees of Cabinet, should be subject to the scrutiny and, if necessary, the ribaldry and hostility of the House of Commons, the elected Members of Parliament.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Having heard so little from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), we must judge the purpose of his Bill from the words on the Order Paper. The impression I get from those words is that this is a bad idea.
It seems to me prima facie—and in the absence of a speech from the hon. Gentleman it is prima facie—a bad idea for three reasons. In the first place, if his intentions are in line with the words on the Order Paper, he would unnecessarily tie the hands of future Prime Ministers of both sides of the House in forming their administrations. This is something which neither by tradition nor by Statute has ever been contemplated before.
These matters are now regulated by the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965. That Measure was progressed by the Labour Party, and was an omnibus constructed to carry the very large party of Ministers which entered the Labour Administration in 1964. It is not strictly relevant to the hon. Member's Motion, but if I remember rightly a number of Ministers were travelling without warrants

until the Measure was passed. The 1965 Act was passed to empower the appointment of up to 91 Ministers and, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, it is that Act which determines which Minis-terms shall be in the House of Lords. In reality, today, under that Act, passed by the progressive Labour Government, there is need for only one Minister in the House of Lords, and that is the Lord Chancellor. That is the effect of the 1965 Act.
My second reason for suggesting that the hon. Member's proposal is not very good is that such a Measure would almost certainly have an ephemeral role. The hon. Gentleman has chosen, among other Ministers, to name those in charge of three Departments which are new creations: Environment, Trade and Industry and Social Services are all creations of the present Government. It may be that in the late 1990s, when the hon. Gentlemen's party may return to power, though it is doubtful, they will have the wisdom to carry on these Departments as we have designed them, but this is unlikely. Environment, in my own time, has had about 12 different aliases, and is likely to have as many more. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows this to be true.
I find one surprising omission from the hon. Gentleman's list of those who may not sit in another place—he has omitted Wales. Imagine the concern of Welsh Members if on the day of a Welsh debate here they were confronted with an Under-Secretary. That might start something.
Speaking seriously, there are over the years constantly changing needs in this regard to which the hon. Gentleman seeks to give some rather inflexible statutory authority. In the time of Lord Attlee's Government it was found desirable to have in the Lords the Minister in charge of Commonwealth Affairs—Lord Addison. In the time of the Leader of the Opposition's first Government the noble Lord, Lord Longford, was in the Lords as Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in our time we have had the Secretary of State for Education and Science there.
My third and strongest reason for opposing the hon. Gentleman's idea is that there may well be a case for reforming


the House of Lords, but there is no case for undermining it by proposals of this kind. The hon. Gentleman may argue that this cock should not be allowed to fight, but there is no case for pulling out its tail feathers, which is just what his proposal would do. If we accept a bicameral system we should accept that there must be a sensible apportionment of Ministers between this House and the other place. We have always left it to the Prime Minister of the day on both sides to make that apportionment, and we have made him answerable to this House for his apportionment.
In 1960, when his Foreign Secretary went there and the House of Commons took exception to it there was a debate,

and the late Hugh Gaitskell raised against the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, the elevation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to that office when he was in the House of Lords, but said that this matter should remain the prerogative of the Prime Minister subject to the correction of this House rather than that it should be subject to the sort of Statute proposed by the hon. Gentleman, which would ossify in a very short space of time.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 171.

Division No. 339.]
AYES
[4.14 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Barnett, Joel
Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Prescott, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Probert, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ress, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Booth, Albert
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Small, William


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Darling, Bt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Steel, David


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Freder'ck
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Weitzman, David


Freeson, Reginald




Garrett W. E.
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Oram, Bert
Mr. Robert Sheldon and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. James Wellbeloved.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Campbell, Rt. Hn. C.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Douglas-Home Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Humphrey
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Balniel, Lord
Channon, Paul
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Bell, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W.
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boscawen, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter
Fortescue, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric
Fowler, Norman


Braine, Bernard
Coombs, Derek
Fox, Marcus


Bray, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Fry, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Curran, Charles
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Burden, F. A.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Goodhew, Victor


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gorst, John




Gower, Raymond
Mac Arthur, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Green, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McMaster, Stanley
Rost, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gurden, Harold
Madel, David
Sharpies, Richard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spence, John


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Higgins, Terence L.




Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Molyneaux, James
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernle
Sutcliffe, John


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornby, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


James, David
Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, w, R.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Osborn, John
Waddington, David


Jessel, Toby
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Warren, Kenneth


Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Kilfedder, James
Percival, Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kinsey, J. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Lambton, Antony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Miss Joan Hall and


Luce, R. N.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.

Orders of the Day — RATING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF DEFINITION OF "AGRICUL- TURAL BUILDINGS" AND "AGRICUL- TURAL LAND" FOR PURPOSES OF DERATING IN ENGLAND AND WALES

4.20 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) In this Part of this Act 'livestock' includes any mammal or bird kept for the production of food or wool or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land.
The underlying intention of the Bill is to exempt from rates all buildings which a farmer uses to produce food from his land. To put that intention into legislative form and to cover all food-producing buildings without including also some processes of farming outside food production was a formidable task. It seemed to us at first when the Bill was drafted that this could be achieved by describing the buildings as "livestock buildings" and by defining "livestock" as it is defined in the Agriculture Act, 1947. But in that definition there is the inclusion not only of food production but of the production of wool, skin and fur. It is true that in the past these have been considered as agricultural operations and are considered as agricultural operations in many spheres of agricultural law. But in debate, both on Second Reading and in Committee, there was much discussion about confining the exemptions granted by the Bill to the production of food and excluding these other items, wool, skin and fur.
Some livestock are bred for production of both food and, for example, wool, or food and skin, and it is an essential element of the exemption from rating granted under the Bill that the building in which the production occurs shall be used solely for the agricultural purpose. That word "solely" is modified a little in the Bill itself, but the purpose of the exemp-

tion is that the purpose of the production shall be food. There is a danger that if one excludes production of wool, fur or skin, from the definition of an agricultural process or operation, one may get the difficulties of excluding the building itself from the exemption.
I came to the conclusion that perhaps no one would mind very much if we were giving some exemption to wool producers, because wool is generally recognised by the ordinary public as being an agricultural operation, and it is so connected with the production of lamb and mutton that it is very difficult to divide up the process. In the case of the production of skin, for example, if the pigskin or cowhide is merely a side production of the production of bacon or beef the whole process would receive the exemption. But on a consideration of the debates which we have had, I thought that if the sole purpose of the operation was to produce pigskin or cowhide for shoes or handbags, and not to produce food, the House would not wish to give that process the benefit of exemption from rates given by the Bill.
One matter which, perhaps, neither the Opposition nor I or my right hon. and hon. Friends could stomach was that we were extending the intentions of the Bill to give exemption to the production of such articles as mink, chinchilla and silver fox, and so we have tried to bring in, in the Amendment, the exclusion of that sort of production from the exemptions to rating. If the Amendment sweeps the humble Angora rabbit out of the exemption, I am afraid that he is one of the legislative casualties for which one cannot provide without very great legislative complications.
At any rate, the intention of the Amendment is to exclude from exemption the buildings in which no food is produced but merely fur, such as the fur which I have mentioned, mink, chinchilla or silver fox, which seem to be the three categories mainly concerned.
4.30 p.m.
There are bound to be some inconsistencies in the Amendment. We have, for example, retained the exemption for the keeping or breeding of animals used in the farming of the land, which are strictly not for the production of food but so ancillary to the production of food


that the exemption must be retained. The only animals covered there are horses, and sheepdogs perhaps.
The Amendment also excludes fish and so-called fish farming. The words used are "mammals and birds" which deliberately exclude fish and fish farming. I do not think anyone would conceive that they came within the Long Title of the Bill and, generally speaking, fish are produced in buildings only for sporting purposes. The definition in the Amendment also excludes bees, but there is a later Amendment down to deal with that.
The intention of the Amendment is to achieve the restriction of the exemptions given by the Bill to buildings in which food is produced. If we have to go a little outside that to include wool, and if we have to tighten it a little to exclude fish, I think it serves the purpose for which the Government are committed by their promises.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: The Minister and I have crossed swords on a number of occasions in Committee, but, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I thank him sincerely for having met us in this Amendment, which bears the hallmark of having been drafted by him. We have got rid of the mink, chinchilla and silver fox, as he says, and I cannot find that any duck-billed platypuses are included—I was never quite certain whether they were mammals or birds, but they are not used in the farming of land.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 26, at end insert:
(5) This section shall have effect for any rate period (within the meaning of the General Rate Act, 1967) beginning after the end of March, 1971.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would be for the convenience of the House if we took also Amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Page: The purpose of Amendment No. 2—and Amendment No. 11 is ancillary to it—is to ensure that Part I of the Bill, which relates to England and Wales, will have effect for the current rate period notwithstanding that the Bill has not been passed before the beginning

of that rate period on 1st April, 1971. Part I of the Bill assumed that the Bill would have passed both Houses and received Royal Assent before 1st April, and Clause 9(2) was inserted with that in mind. Had the Bill received Royal Assent before that date it would automatically have applied to the rate year 1971–72.
For practical purposes, changes in rating law have to be made effective from the beginning of a rate period. Having regard to the undertakings which the Government had given to bring in the Bill, and the announcements which had been made, the Government could not justify deferment of the operation of the Bill until the rating year 1972–73. The Amendment has, therefore, to be made since we have passed the beginning of the rate year 1971–72.
I do not think that this is likely to inconvenience anyone. The announcements that the Bill was intended were made last autumn, apart from the statements prior to the General Election, and the Bill was introduced in good time for local authorities to fix their rates and precepts on the not unreasonable assumption that the Bill would eventually become law and apply to this rate year. It is difficult to envisage how the Amendment could cause practical disadvantage to anyone. As I have said, the Government promised to bring in a Bill of this nature last June, and the Government always carry out their promises immediately. The intention was confirmed by statement last autumn, and the Bill was printed many weeks ago and has had a thorough debate on Second Reading and in Committee.
The abhorrence of retrospective legislation, which both sides of the House share, is when it imposes a burden or liability upon an individual in respect of which he would have ordered his life differently had he known about it at the time. Retrospective legislation which gives a benefit has been accepted by the House on previous occasions. Retrospective legislation is condemned if, but only if, it creates retrospective liability, or confiscation, or a burden, and not if it awards a benefit.
The Bill gives a benefit of exemption from rating. It could be argued that the giving of a benefit to a certain section might place a liability on the remaining


ratepayers, but that is always so with taxation. That may not necessarily be so, one cannot tell. There may be a saving for everyone.
I base my argument for the Amendment on the fact that, although it is to some extent retrospective, it will be passed during the rate year which it affects and places no burden on an individual.

Mr. John Silkin: The nicest thing I can say about the Minister is that he was so obviously uncomfortable in making his speech. He and I both know, and it is no secret, that what is being done here offends against the traditions of this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stoddart): Really!

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, will he go to the Table and tell us that he is in favour of retrospective legislation? I have my answer. I should have thought that all parties represented in this House were agreed that it is bad. The best that can be said for it is that there are precedents for bad things in the world and sometimes they have to be done. The only similar precedent on rating that I can think of occurred about 15 years ago under a Conservative Government. I do not believe that one could find that a Labour Government or a Liberal Government had ever done it. But there it is. That is the precedent which is relied on.
Is this so vital a matter that the House of Commons must go against the whole of its tradition and introduce retrospective legislation—indeed, retrospective taxation, for that is what it comes to? The Minister says that there have been undertakings, and this Government always fulfil their undertakings. Undertakings to whom? Who was assured that the Bill would come into effect in the present rating year even though it did not receive the Royal Assent until after that rating year had ended?
Undertakings to whom—to the local authorities, to the associations? Not at all. They would be dead against it. Undertakings to whom that this had to be done now? It may have been in two or three Conservative election addresses,

and it may have been in the Conservative Party's manifesto that the Bill was intended. I do not quarrel about that. But it did not have to be done straight away, and, what is more, it did not have to be done straight away if the effect would be to offend against one of the fundamental principles which govern our legislation and which, after all, govern the relationship between the two parties.
The main point here is not whether this or that individual will be badly placed as a result of the retrospective legislation. Some individuals and some councils will be. But it would not matter if not a single person or authority was adversely affected, even though they are bound to be, since, as the Minister himself said, a benefit to one must be a disadvantage to another.
We are concerned about the principle. At the risk of wearying the House, I refer again to what I said in Committee, for I believe that it needs a wider audience. The Amendment would create a situation in which something wrong in principle was done, establishing a deeper precedent for some other Government at some other time to say, "You did it. You cannot complain if I do it". That is the real curse of the Amendment.
What is more, the Bill has been hurried. Perhaps the Minister was so keen on satisfying election promises even before his Leader wanted to, but hurried it has been, without doubt. A lot of matters which ought to have been considered will not have opportunity for consideration. They may in another place; I do not know. On Second Reading, we talked of a number of matters which called for careful thought—the treatment of animals, for example, and so on. All these would have had greater time for consideration if matters had been treated differently.
The difficulty—I put it frankly—in which my hon. Friends and I find ourselves is this. The Minister has given us a Morton's Fork. If we defeat the Amendments, the Bill will remain as it stands, with the date 1st April instead of 31st March. If, on the other hand, we do not vote against the Amendments, we may be taken to acquiesce. The course which I recommend to my hon. Friends, therefore, is that we deal with this matter now not by Division but by


speeches, and then, when the Third Reading comes, we divide against the Bill, without debate—which otherwise I should not have wished to do—on the basis that it is retrospective legislation.
I should not like a future Labour Government, whenever that may come, to be committed to anything of this kind, for I should hate to hear them say, "A Conservative Government introduced retrospective legislation in 1971. We can do it now. We did not object to it then". I should not wish to be a party to that, so for the sake of precedent and for the sake of principle, I suggest that that is the way we deal with it. In the meantime, it will be speeches only, and we shall divide against the Bill for that reason on Third Reading.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I, also, am somewhat concerned, for this is undoubtedly retrospective legislation. I have been in the House now for 20 years. Throughout that time, there has been a great reluctance to introduce retrospective legislation. My hon. Friend the Minister said that it was assumed that the Bill would be on the Statute Book in time for it to take effect in this rating year. It is utterly wrong for any Government to assume that any Bill will go on the Statute Book, and, all the more, to assume that it will go on the Statute Book at any set time.
I agree that, if we were removing a great hardship from the shoulders of any particular person or classes of persons, the House would, I believe, move away from its considerable reluctance to introduce retrospective legislation. But in this case there can be no question of hardship. The Bill has one function only, to derate factory farms.
I cannot believe that factory farmers are in such a parlous state that retrospective help of this kind must be given. In Committee, the Minister himself said that this was the most economic way of farming. I cannot for the life of me understand why factory farmers should be given this precedence, while—let us be honest about it—it will be done at the expense of ordinary ratepayers, many of whom are far less able to bear the consequences of the extra rates which this change will impose upon them than the factory farmers would be to bear the

consequences of not receiving the exemption.
I hope that this will not be a precedent set by this Government for the introduction of retrospective legislation of this kind.

Mr. William Molloy: I agree with everything said by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I, too, find any form of retrospective legislation repugnant, and I find it even more offensive here since it is for the benefit of factory farming.
Many thousands of ordinary people share the views on this matter held by, among others, the hon. Member for Gillingham and myself. In passing, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture for being good enough to give of his time—he is a busy Minister—to see the officers of the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming. I thank him sincerely for that, and for his courtesy and his endeavours to answer many of the points put to him. I am sure that he will acknowledge that the feeling held by the people who saw him was sincerely held, and, what is more, they were well informed about what was going on. They were not just starry-eyed idealists, but there were among them folk who had an intimate knowledge and a great deal of experience of what goes on in what we call factory farming.
In moving the first Amendment this afternoon, the Minister seemed for a moment to bask in the sunshine of the exclusion from exemption of chinchilla and silver fox farms. But his argument then makes his present case even worse. They have been excluded because those animals yield a particularly valuable skin. It is not out of any decent feeling, it is not because they are being raised in appalling conditions, but simply because the end product will provide a chinchilla or a silver fox for some very wealthy person to wear.
I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend's thanking the hon. Gentleman for giving at least that little crumb of comfort. It made the situation worse. We cannot say when we are talking about the real agonies and miseries of birds and animals in intensive and factory farming, "What a pity their feathers are not very rare; what a pity the hides of


these pigs are not very expensive, because then they would be excluded from the Bill". A number of people who have given a great deal of thought to the matter have been appalled that under neither the present nor the previous Government has there been enough endeavour to implement the findings of the Brambell Report. Now, instead of having the comfort of thinking that something might be done, we see a retrograde step being taken. We have sought to outlaw the way in which some producers raise birds and animals, a way which millions of people find repugnant, but they will now be encouraged. That is wrong.
I believe that it is not impossible to define in the Bill those installations and buildings which come within the code of a factory farm. Even if the specialist committees investigating the matter are not quite sure, they should have been told, "Make up your minds very quickly to guide us so that these institutions, these so-called factory farms, this form of intensive farming, cannot be called the normal way of farming". That having been said, a code should have been drafted to make sure that those who indulge in that form of farming were excluded from the Bill. Such a move would have been welcomed by many members of the farming community, and certainly by the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming. I believe, too, that it would have given the Government a rather clearer conscience.
There is a great deal of feeling in the country on the matter. We could argue that, because of the Bill, that feeling will be intensified and more representations will be made. I am sure that that will happen. I assure the Government that the endeavours of the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming will in no way be set back by the Bill. On the contrary, it will be encouraged to campaign even more strongly against what the Government have done in the Bill. The Government have completely disregarded the feelings of many people who find the so-called ethics of factory farming repugnant. They have failed to make any effort to respect those feelings, and in failing they have annoyed people who will find that they must pay more in rates, because the same amount of money will have to be found. Local authorities

will not say, "Because certain sections of the farming community are excluded from paying rates, we will have to cut back our programmes". They will maintain their programmes, so they must find a way of replacing the finance lost as a result of the Bill. That alone should have given the Government food for thought. Those same ratepayers who will have to pay more include many people who are concerned about the growth of factory farming, a growth which was made so clear in the Brambell Report.
I hope that by Third Reading the Government will have taken cognisance of what has been said by my hon. Friends and myself and the hon. Member for Gillingham and introduce an Amendment to meet our wishes and those of the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming and of thousands of people outside the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before calling the next speaker, I should like to point out that it is difficult for the Chair to continue to allow speakers to stray as widely as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has done. I appreciate the point he wished to make, but it would have been more appropriate on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order. Opportunities were provided on paper for us to make representations, and then, in accordance with the current will of the Government, the Government erased them and tried to silence us. We must find ways and means of voicing our feelings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair was merely making the point that it has been fairly lenient and hopes that hon. Members will have noticed that.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I, too, deplore the introduction of retrospective legislation on such an important matter.
I have three questions for the Minister arising from the two Amendments. First, what is the position of a local authority having in its rating area intensive livestock units on which rates were levied in 1970–71 and on which they have been levied and collected for 1971–72? Does


it have to repay the rates? Second, the obverse of that, what is the position of a farmer who has intensive livestock buildings which had been rated in 1970–71 and on which rates have been paid for the years 1971–72? Has he a legal right to recover his rates from the local authority? Third, what is the position of a local authority which has made its rate in the pound for 1971–72 on the basis that the existing law would continue for 1971–72? Has it a right to levy a larger rate now that it will be deprived of part of the rate income it was either budgeting to levy or has already received from farmer ratepayers? What procedure must it adopt to balance its books?

Mr. Graham Page: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, perhaps I might answer the questions raised.
The intent of the Bill was announced some 12 months ago. It was confirmed by a statement to the House last autumn, and the details of how it was to be carried out were before the House when the Bill was printed on 14th January, 1971, which is quite a considerable period before the beginning of the rating year.
I justify the application of the Bill to the rating year 1971–72 on two scores. First, it is a reform which is beneficial; it is a relief from tax, and not an imposition of tax, and it is the imposition of tax against which it is claimed that retrospective legislation should not be made. Second, it is not wholly retrospective, since it applies to the rate period within which it will come into operation. This principle is already recognised in rating law, in that if a a proposal for alteration of a rate is made, that proposal, when decided, dates back to the beginning of the rating year in which the proposal is made. That principle answers the question raised in connection with a case in which a local authority may have already levied and collected the rates—which is most unlikely at this stage, since the Bill is well known to the local authorities—and where a farmer has paid his rates. The same principle applies here as with a proposal for variation of rates, where the matter is adjusted accordingly.

5.0 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The arguments of the Minister towards the end of his short speech were rather thin. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) tells me that he has paid his rates as of this rating year. Of course, he is wealthier than I am. I am about to lodge with my bank my instalment as an English ratepayer, due to be paid on 28th April. It is all very well to say that there can be adjustments, but we are already in a rating year. The hon. Gentleman's argument is perhaps valid about an adjustment which a local authority can make, but it is not a valid argument to put before us in relation to this Bill.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was being charitable to the Minister in the way in which he described the presumption of the Bill. This is an arrogant Bill. It is Parliamentary arrogance. The Minister has undergone a metamorphosis or perhaps a phantamagoria. From the Dr. Jekyll we used to know he has turned into the monstrous Mr. Hyde of today. He has done two terrible things. He has behaved with an arrogance of which none of us thought him capable, and he has betrayed a principle which, when he was on these benches, he defended with great zeal. His attitude contrasts rather unfavourably with the arguments we had about retrospective legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) was cavalierly treated by the hon. Gentleman. He got no answers to his questions at all. It is quite possible for a local authority to charge only half the rates—that is to say, for a second rating demand to be made some time later on in the year, when half the year has gone. Why could the Government not have put down an Amendment in those terms instead of this one, which presumes that the rateable charge is to be made on 1st April?
The Minister says that this is not a rateable charge but a relief of the rates. He should see the matter from the other side of the coin. Some of us feel that this is an unfair burden to throw on other ratepayers who will have to pay more rates as a consequence. Adjustments will have to be made in their rates. It may be argued that the amount will


be small, but if their rates are not adjusted this year, then they will have to be adjusted next year. We do not like this in practice or in principle.
The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in another place to bring forward an Amendment to say that he will levy these rates later in the rating year. There is ample precedent in Scottish, if not in English, practice for this to be done. He is wrong in resorting to past precedent in quoting the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, dealing with the relief of rates on church buildings. That is a discretion exercised by the rating authority. It was retrospective, but it was a power which could be moderated in that the rating authority could choose not to exercise its discretion in favour of church buildings. The hon. Gentleman used the plural, perhaps by accident. If he did not use it by accident, what other precedents does he draw on? As my right hon. Friend said, what does it matter if there are one or a dozen precedents? Why should that be made a reason for acting in this way in the Bill?
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) told us last week in a public hall in Scotland that the Government had fulfilled 63 promises. I understand, according to a recent estimate, for which I am not responsible, that there are 3,000 promises in the Conservative manifesto. That means that at the moment the Government have still to fulfill 2,937 promises.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Over five years.

Dr. Mahon: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) is good enough to give me my argument. He says that the manifesto is for five years. Why, therefore, must this particular promise be fulfilled this year, when it involves breaching the parliamentary and legal principle of retrospective legislation? Why is the Minister, in order to fulfill this promise, paying the price of breaching a principle which all his legal life he has maintained as important? I do not know whether we shall get any change out of him at this late stage in this House. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take the advice of my right hon. Friend and vote formally against the Third Reading of a Bill which introduces retrospective legislation. Will the Minister not con-

sider this again? Will he not in another place introduce an Amendment which will bring this provision into being in August or September this rating year, or in the next rating year?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

LIVESTOCK BUILDINGS

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 3, after 'livestock', insert:
'including for the purposes of this Act hives used for the keeping or breeding of bees'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 28, after first 'building', insert:
'other than a building used in connection with the keeping or breeding of bees'.
also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill).

Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When would it be your intention to take Government Amendments No. 6 and No. 8, which have a bearing on some later Amendments put down by the Opposition—No. 5 and No. 7—regarding the definition of the word "railway"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall get to them in due course. I hope that it is convenient to take No. 3 and No. 4 together at present.

Mr. Hill: These two Amendments refer back to a short debate in Committee, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), in which he emphasised the vital importance of bee farmers to agriculture, not so much through honey production but in stimulating and assisting the production of pollen. My hon. Friend wanted to make clear that ancillary buildings owned by bee-keepers and used for honey extraction and hive maintenance and the like should have the benefit of the provisions of the Bill and not be rated.
According to the Ministry of Agriculture's records, there are no fewer than 33,000 bee-keepers in the country with less than 40 hives. I do not believe that


many of them are likely to be rated. But the 300 or so who have 40 or more hives are finding themselves rated somewhat haphazardly at the moment because the law is somewhat obscure. If an Amendment is not made to the Bill, it is probable that valuation officers will move in to rate the larger bee farmers.
My hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged in Committee that this was a worthy objective, but the difficulty is one of drafting. He pointed out that the habitation in which bees are kept and breed—the beehive—is not a building fixed to land but a chattel necessarily moveable to wherever the honey and the pollen are. There is the further point that, in the nature of bee-keeping, it is unlikely that ancillary buildings would be attached to five acres of agricultural land.
Since I put down these Amendments, my hon. Friend has written to me saying that it is not acceptable for the purposes of the Bill to suggest that a bee hive should be deemed to be a building. He said this regretfully and I acknowledge his legal correctitude in resisting the Amendments. He said that he hoped to introduce a suitable Amendment at a later stage in another place but that drafting difficulties were holding matters up. My purpose now is merely to ask the Minister whether he would convert that hope into an assurance for the reason that I have given—that if the Amendment is not made, the Bill will clearly put bee keepers into an even bigger difficulty than hitherto.

Mr. Graham Page: The Government are sympathetic to the bee farmers as food producers and bona fide agriculturists of very long standing. The undertaking which I gave to my hon. Friend in Standing Committee and in the letter which I wrote to him to consider bringing the buildings they use within the scope of the Bill has not been overlooked.
My hon. Friend's Amendment is ingenious. It deems a beehive to be a building so that we may exempt those buildings ancillary to bee-keeping, buildings where the honey is stored and where honey as we know it when we eat it is made. However, I am advised that it is technically unsound. This is because the circumstances of bee-keeping do not

correspond to the circumstances of livestock rearing as covered by the Bill, and it is therefore not possible to provide this simple answer.
However, it is hoped to be able to deal with the matter during the passage of the Bill in another place. If my hon. Friend would be good enough not to press his Amendment today, I assure him that we propose to leave the bees to be dealt with in another place.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 29, leave out from 'section' to end of line 42 and insert:
'if situated in a built-up area as defined in section 1(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1934'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 27, leave out from 'section' to end of line 43 and insert:
'if situated in a built-up area as defined in section 1(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1934'.

Dr. Mabon: The authorship of the Amendment stretches across the Floor of the House from the Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and all I can modestly claim is that I am proposing it. I do so hoping that the Minister will say that the Government's Amendment No. 6 is not contradictory to what we suggest. I hope that he will say that he is willing to look at this matter yet again.
This is perhaps the one part of the Bill on which both sides of the House are agreed, but they could agree more wholeheartedly about this than about any other part of the Bill. It is most significant, and it is a cause for concern on both sides of the House.
Hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee and who have not read the reports of our proceedings closely will not know that at one stage the Minister gave us high hopes that he would amend the Bill, but later he did not do so. Some of us were depressed by the fact that he was not willing to take the matter a stage further. The


Amendment gives him the chance to suggest that he is willing to abandon his definition of agricultural land, which involves five acres and is complicated and likely to give rise to the anomalies and difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friends particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), who is unable to be with us at this moment. The Amendment is an earnest effort to provide a definition to ensure that industrialised factory farming does not occur in heavily populated areas.
5.15 p.m.
Both sides are agreed about that principle. We have struggled with the definition. We insist that the present definition will permit intensive factory farming in towns and other built-up areas. In Committee we suggested that the limits should be the boundaries of boroughs and cities, but that idea was rejected on the sound advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, who said that there were areas of boroughs and cities which were agricultural, so that our suggestion would be self-defeating.
I have taken the Minister's advice and gone to the Road Traffic Act, which defines a built-up area. If he shoots me down with the argument that this is a technically bad Amendment, I hope that he will not regard that as a conclusive argument. I do not regard that as a fair argument for Ministers to use. When I was a Minister, I did not use it against an adversary, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will not do so. If it is technically defective, he should allow me to withdraw it and bring forward his own technically perfect Amendment to the same end.
If he knows another and better way in which to meet our intention, I will withdraw the Amendment so that the Government may make their proposals in another place. We are all unhappy with the present definition which is intended to ensure that factory farming occurs in the countryside and not in heavily populated areas.
That is the burden of the Amendment and I hope that in that conciliatory and constructive spirit the Minister will agree, if not to accept the Amendment, at least to look at the matter again.

Mr. Deakins: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson

Mabon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), I sincerely hope that the Minister will reconsider Clause 2(4). We all agree that intensive livestock production should not take place in built-up areas and if it does, should not get the benefit of derating.
However, there are two difficulties in the wording of subsection (4) and they are not overcome by the Minister's minor definition of what is a railway. The first concerns the definitions of "road", "railway" and "watercourse". In Committee, the Minister admitted that the definition of "watercourse" could be so wide as to cover a tidal estuary, and that might lead to certain anomalies.
The second difficulty is that subsection (4) could allow an intensive livestock production unit to be established within a built-up area and to get the benefit of derating. For instance, an intensive livestock unit could be on the edge of a town and separated from surrounding agricultural land by a railway—a genuine railway which the cattle could not cross—or by a river, or estuary which the cattle could not cross. The cattle could enter and leave the premises and feeding stuffs could be brought into the unit and slurry could be disposed of in such a way as to affect the built-up area and not be in connection with agricultural operations on the surrounding land, which, although technically surrounding it under the wording of subsection (4), was not in any way directly involved with the operations of the unit.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will look at this matter again, because we are all at one in wanting to ensure that the benefits of the Bill are not extended to such units. But technically and theoretically as the Bill stands it is possible for such units to be established within a built-up area and to be derated.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dickson Mabon) said that I gave him high hopes in Committee that we would be able to discover a better subsection than the one we have in the Bill. I gave myself high hopes too. I was quite carried away with my idea until I sat down with the parliamentary draftsmen to see how it could be brought into operation. I have some sympathy with the intention of this


Amendment, which as I understand it is to substitute for the present condition for exemption in the Bill that livestock or ancillary buildings must be contiguous with a continuous area of agricultural land of not less than five acres this idea of the built-up area, the buildings must not be in a built-up area.
When I turned to find out what a built-up area is in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, 1934, I discovered that the Act has been repealed. For the purpose of the record the provision is now in Section 72(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967. I found the definition of a built-up area in the 1934 Act to be:
…a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area—

(a) if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon, unless a direction that it shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section; or
(b) if a direction that it shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section;
and not otherwise.
What the Act defines is not an area at all: it is when a road shall be deemed to be in an area. It defines the road only.
The purpose of the Amendment is identical with that of the formula we already have in the Bill. It seeks to deny exemption to buildings in what would commonly be called built-up areas. Superficially the Amendment has advantages. The first is that it states directly the purpose of the condition instead of indirectly as does our formula and secondly it achieves the purpose better in excluding from exemption buildings on the perimeter of the built-up area which the condition in the Bill does not do in general.
I have some sympathy with the Amendment and I have studied it carefully to see whether it could possibly fit the Bill. The definition derived from the Road Traffic Act illustrates the difficulty of attempting to define a built-up area. The existence and spacing of street lamps along a road provides a very workable definition for imposing speed limits on those roads but it does not follow that it would work properly in trying to define what we mean by a built-up area for agricultural purposes. If we accept any form of this phrase, "built-up area" cer-

tainly as defined by the Road Traffic Act we would get into greater difficulties.

Mr. Burden: Would it not be possible to determine this from localised speed limits? For instance, if there is a speed limit of 30 or 40 miles an hour, it could probably be assumed that it was a built-up area because of that restriction.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is describing a road and not an area. It is all very well to say that the road shall be deemed to be in a built-up area but how far back in the hinterland from the road do we go? What is the area? This is not at all satisfactory. It does not really meet the point which both sides have been trying to meet in Committee. I have to admit defeat on this because the phrase "built-up area" cannot be properly defined. If we leave it without a definition, merely to individual judgment without there being a precise term, it is merely an invitation to litigation. I have to return to the formula in the Bill the advantage of which, however ungainly it may appear, is that there is very little exercise of judgment in applying it.
The five acres are measurable, the disregards are apparent, the question of whether land is agricultural land and the occupancy of the land for buildings are matters within the ordinary range of rating. I find that although I have tried hard to express the condition in ordinary language which everyone will understand I have come to the conclusion that the formula in the Bill has the advantage of being precise and capable of being applied. For all its faults Clause 2(4) will work. It can be applied easily and it substantially achieves its object. No other suggestion which has been made, including this Amendment will be more effective for that purpose.

Mr. John Silkin: I hope I may rely on the tolerance of the Chair a little because it is difficult to discuss this Amendment without at least a glancing blow at the following one. I noticed that the Minister did this because he talked about what he called the disregards, that is the road, railway or watercourse. Basically we are in agreement that whatever this Bill shall apply to it shall not apply to a building in an area which is not agricultural. As I say that I suddenly find that I have made a definition. It seems extraordinary that


the intellectual powerhouse that is the Minister for Local Government should, after these weary weeks, be left with the same sad definition as was in the original Bill. It is not even precise.
The Minister has learned many things in Committee. He has learned that a watercourse may be tidal, a piece of information which I hope he will carry with carry with him to the greater benefit of the community for all time. He has learned too that it is possible that there can be a building on one side of a stretch of water—I think we agreed on the Severn Estuary, we were in some difficulties about the English Channel—and on the other side there might be five acres of agricultural land belonging to someone totally different. As a result the building in which factory farming, to which all of us object, is taking place would be treated as an agricultural building for the purposes of the Bill because of the disregards and because of this Clause.
If this is being precise then the Minister has to re-learn his geography. This is a bad way of doing things. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in talking about a built-up area is using the phrase which appears in a number of Acts. It must therefore, even to the Minister, have a meaning. I suggest that the meaning of a built-up area is an area which is built up. That simple definition is very precise. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), thinking quickly and shrewdly, pointed out that in such an area he and I are liable to be fined for travelling at 31 miles an hour. At least the police seem to know what a built-up area is. Whether it is a question of the road on which a person travels the Act refers to an area that is built up. My hon. Friend's definition, subject to a slight change to deal with the amending legislation—what is 33 years among friends?—would really meet the point. If not it would surely be sufficiently precise to say that a building is not an agricultural building unless it is placed in an agricultural area. I do not think that there is any judge in the country who would be bothered about that definition.
5.30 p.m.
I ask the Minister to think hard and to disregard the parliamentary draftsmen

because, if they have had a hand in the Bill, they have made a terrible mess of it. I rely on the Minister's drafting ability. He and I have had to draft matters in the past in other existences.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: How would the right hon. Gentleman define farms which are in built-up areas? There are quite a few of them, with buildings.

Mr. Silkin: I am dealing, not with farms in built-up areas, but with intensive animal production. Furthermore, in saying that "built-up area" is a better definition of a built-up area than the definition in the Bill, I am merely stating the exact truth.
It is not up to me to draft all the Government's legislation for them. I will willingly do it, but I think that the Minister would find the whole tenor of it changed. It is up to the Minister to ensure that the legislation is right and makes sense. This Bill does not make sense. After ten months of Conservative Government thinking as represented by one of their more intellectual members, we have a provision that says that a railway remains a railway if the tracks are taken away.
The Minister has time before the Bill goes to another place to meet the point which we all have in mind. We do not want industrial processes to be applied to the rearing, keeping or breeding of animals. There is time for further thought, and I hope that the Minister will give it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: With permission, I should like to say a few words.
I am naturally distressed that the Minister has been unable to find a new formula. If I am obliged to withdraw the Amendment, I shall do so. It is technically defective. It refers to legislation which has been repealed. I shall not press the Amendment. But if an Amendment is not to be proposed elsewhere, the Minister drives us back to a discussion about what the Bill says. The definition in the Bill is a very bad definition. The disregards are even more difficult to follow.
The Minister talked about the negativeness of the Clause. It refers to what is not an agricultural building and includes agricultural buildings in the disregard.


It defines something that is not and proceeds to refer to a disregard of something positive which is not being defined. What is so lamentable is that hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed about this matter. There is no argument about it. We are fumbling for some technical expertise outside the Chamber. Inside the Chamber, we are trying to find a satisfactory formula. We have tried very earnestly, and perhaps the Minister would show some acknowledgment of that.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister to devise another formula. We are told that he is always thinking. Perhaps he will think about this matter and see whether the provision can be rephrased in another place. If he will nod his head to show that he is willing to think about it, I will withdraw the Amendment. He does not nod his head, but I shall, in fervent hope, being a permanent optimist, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 42, at end add:
(5) In this section "railway" includes the former site of a railway from which railway lines have been removed.
The Amendment is a definition of the meaning of "railway" as used in the Clause. It is a small and minor Amendment. It does not raise the major points raised by the last Amendment. The purpose is merely to make clear that the term "railway" in the Bill means a disused railway as well as one where the tracks are retained. If the track has been pulled up, it remains a railway for the purpose of the disregard in the Bill. I have been assured that the Amendment is necessary to include disused railway tracks in the disregards under the Clause.

Mr. John Silkin: It is with very great sadness that I direct my mind to the Amendment. I admire the expertise of the Minister for Local Government and Development. He was able to make his remarks with a perfectly straight face. I am not as good an actor as he is. The result of all the thinking which has been done is that a disused railway from which the tracks have been removed,

or possibly a railway from which the tracks have been removed by sabotage, is a railway. The Minister feels that this is an important consideration in the Clause. By the same token, we should define a disused road. Certainly the Minister should tell us that watercourses, in being disregarded, should be nontidal. But he has chosen disused railways.
This highlights the total absurdity of the whole Clause. There is not one hon. Member who does not agree that it is absurd. The best that the Minister can say is that he has thought very hard but cannot think of anything better. On that basis, it would perhaps be better to scrap the Bill and start again—disregard the railway lines, disregard the Bill.
This is an extraordinary Amendment to propose on Report to what is intended to be a serious legislative body about to go on its Easter holiday. The whole of the subsection is badly drafted, and the Minister knows that as well as I do. He should think about it again.

Mr. Deakins: I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silk in) has said. The Minister has given us an additional definition of one of the three disregards in subsection (4). It is a definition of the word "railway", which hon. Members on both sides in Committee agreed would give the courts least trouble. Everyone knows what a railway is. There was a minor doubt about whether a railway was a railway if the tracks had been torn up. The Minister has done nothing about the two major disregards which will apply in many cases, namely, what is a road, and what is a watercourse?
It is sad that the Minister has spent all this time thinking up a minor Amendment to the definition of "railway" which is acceptable to the Opposition but has left to the judgment of the courts and the wit of lawyers to decide when a road is not a road, what is a watercourse, what is a tidal watercourse, and so on? If he wishes to define the word "railway", he should look again at a more adequate definition of "road". Does it include a farm track? What is a watercourse? Does it include a ditch? Should it include a tidal estuary?

Mr. Graham Page: I am gravely disappointed that when I produce an Amendment in response to the valid points made by the Opposition in Committee it is received in this most grudging way. The Amendment is very sound. The Bill refers to railways. The Opposition threw doubt on whether it referred to railways still in operation or railways which had been abandoned and the tracks were no longer in existence. Obviously, we have to meet that very valid point. I have met it. Here is a simple clear definition, 1¼ lines long, put into the Bill. It is received in this ungrateful fashion. I am told that I should have amended the Bill further and said what a road is. Do not the Opposition know what a road is? It is perfectly simple. A road is a road.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) is so worried about these livestock buildings which are on the banks of the Severn. There is an estuary 10 miles wide, and the five acres to qualify are on the other side of the estuary. But why worry about that? There is the whole open space of the estuary. Is not that as good as the five acres round the building?
This is a very good Amendment in response to the Opposition's point. I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 5, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert:
(6) In this section—
'livestock' includes any mammal or bird kept for the production of food or wool or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land;
'railway' includes the former site of a railway from which railway lines have been removed.
The arguments behind the two points which arise here have been adequately covered already, particularly in the last speech of my hon. Friend. In view of that, I move the Amendment formally.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: We shall not oppose the Amendment. The first part embraces the first Amendment that we discussed on Report. The second part concerns the last debate in which the Minister got so excited and so confused in defending his position.
We do not like the last Amendment. We do not want it. It only makes the position worse. The fact that the Scots are slavishly following the English into this quagmire of legislation, into a bad definition for a good purpose, is no reason why anyone should be cheerful about Amendment No. 8.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary moved this Amendment, because his great Parliamentary moment is about to come. I hope that he, after a conversation with his hon. Friend, will say that the Government are willing to look at the definition again in another place.
The Minister lectured us for being ungrateful for Amendment No. 6. How can we be expected to be grateful when we do not want it? This disregard makes a wider concession to those engaged in intensive animal production.
Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) very fairly tried to make the point in regard to a water course and a road, did not we successfully convince the Minister that there was a case to be looked at? On 4th March, the hon. Gentleman undertook to look into this. Did not he also concede the argument about the extent of a road and how taking in an intersection of a motorway could involve a considerable acreage of land? We thought that these points would be commented on at this stage. Instead, the Minister has lectured us because he has made a bad Amendment.
The fact that a Scots Minister has presented it is sad. I should like the hon. Gentleman to have a word with his hon. Friend, while I draw my remarks to a conclusion, with a view to telling us that the Government have had second thoughts and propose to deal in another place with watercourses, railways and roads and with the awkward subsection in Clause 4 in a way which is suitable to us all.
We do not disagree on any matter of substance. We disagree simply about the form of words used. It is a terrible commentary on Ministers that they cannot find a commendable version which is acceptable to the Opposition and, instead, stick to this flyblown version with which we have been lumbered and which no one likes.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

AMENDMENT OF OTHER ENACTMENTS

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, Amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 18, leave out "a substantial" and insert "the greater".
I will not weary the House with a repetition of the arguments in Committee, because they are perfectly clear and the words are rather obvious.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary undertook to look again at the wording and to see whether there was any justification for the change that we proposed in our probing Amendment. Unfortunately, doubtless because of the speed with which this Report stage has come on, the hon. Gentleman has not been able to inform me whether he has considered the matter. I should be grateful for his views on the subject.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has moved the Amendment. I can assure him that, despite the speed with which this Government move in their legislation, I have had plenty of time to consider the point.
I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides are agreed with the purpose that we are trying to achieve in the subsection. The real point which the right hon. Gentleman raised in Committee and again today is whether the definition might not be improved by substituting the word "greater" for the word "substantial".
We have looked at the point carefully. As a result of our study, we prefer the use of the word "substantial". It is slightly more restrictive than the word "greater". I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants to extend the effect of this provision. On that assumption, we believe that we should retain the word "substantial".
If one takes the word "greater", one moves quickly towards the 50 per cent. ratio: anything over 50 per cent. could be argued to be greater, on the basis of pure comparison, whereas the word "substantial" is one which has been used in other legislation, which is understood by the courts in other contexts, and which

has been interpreted successfully by them. To substitute the word "greater" would make the Clause very much less restrictive. No one really wants to do that.
One comes back to the question whether the word "substantial" is adequate. In the light of its use in other legislation and in the light of court decisions on its use in other contexts, we believe that it is the best word.

Mr. Deakins: The Under-Secretary has spoken about making the definition of the time during which an agricultural building is so used for intensive livestock production less restrictive. I should have thought that it was the desire of everyone to make it more restrictive, in the sense that a burden is placed on the farmer or producer to use the building not only for a substantial part of the time, not only for the greater part of the time, but for the vast majority of the time. Even in Committee we did not have a satisfactory explanation why it was necessary to alter the existing rating law concerning agricultural buildings and their use for agricultural purposes.
As the Minister admitted in Committee, this Amendment was not pressed or supported by the National Farmers' Unions. They were quite happy with the definition of "sole use" which meant that there was a de minimis provision. But the Minister, for some reason best known to himself, chose to widen the definition in a way which will enable a number of people who do not benefit from derating to drive a coach and horses through this part of the Bill. I am thinking particularly of farmers, co-operative groups and other groups of farmers who, apart from being engaged in agricultural operations, are also engaged in agricultural trade.
It is possible, by having "substantial" as the definition of the amount of time during which a building must be used for agricultural purposes to qualify for derating, that a building could be used for only a few months of the year for agricultural purposes, such as grain storage, and for the rest of the year for the purposes of agricultural trade, such as selling the grain which had been stored. This would give not only individual farmers but groups in particular, who would seize on the opportunity given by this provision, an unfair competitive advantage over normal agricultural traders.
It is, therefore, wrong that the Government, by this alteration in the law, making it much wider and freer for farmers and groups to take advantage of it, should be seen to be giving an unfair advantage by derating agricultural premises in these circumstances.

Mr. John Silkin: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask whether the Minister will say something on the subject? I should be happy to withdraw the Amendment if he were to give an undertaking to discuss with the local authorities in England, and if his right hon. Friend were to discuss with the local authorities in Scotland, the effect of the word "substantial". We all know what we are trying to ban. If a directive could be issued, I think that would satisfy us.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Perhaps I might respond to the right hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins).
First, the hon. Member for Waitham-stow, West is frightened—I appreciate his point—that those who were farmers in the first instance and extended into trade and commerce could benefit from this Clause. The hon. Gentleman raised this point in Committee where it was discussed fully because concern had been expressed by the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants and by others.
We have tried to cover the situation—I am talking of what has happened in Scotland in recent years—where it has been found that the de minimis rule seems to have been slightly extended and practices have arisen which, in the eyes of many, were of a de minimis nature, yet the courts, in their wisdom, have decided that, because these activities have taken place, a building should have been rated. In other words, the courts have decided that they have not been an insubstantial—I apologise for using that word—part of the activities of those who carried on business in the premises. In equity, we have felt that it was not fair that they should have been completely subjected to rates in the circumstances. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in Scotland—the Clause refers specifically to Scotland—conditions have made it necessary to introduce the Clause.
Concerning the extent to which the Clause enables ordinary farmers to compete unfairly with those carrying on trade or commerce in buildings which in other circumstances would be rated, in view of the definitions of the word "substantial" given in other contexts, we believe that the matter is covered satisfactorily. If a farmer was genuinely going to be in competition with these other people the use would be substantial, and the courts—we have to leave a great deal to the common sense of the courts in such matters—would treat it sensibly and deal with it in the light of the intention which lies behind the legislation.

Mr. Deakins: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that there could not be two substantial uses of the same premises at the same time?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is almost coming back to the 49 and 51 per cent, argument. It is not for Parliament to say what the courts should decide. If there were two substantial absolutely equal uses, obviously in that case each use would be substantial and one could cancel out the other.

Mr. John M. Temple: Has my hon. Friend had any representations from rating authorities concerning the use of the word "substantial"?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not aware of any particular representations which have been made on this point in Scotland. I understand from all those with whom the Bill has been discussed that it has not given rise to controversy. I can speak only about the Scottish part of the Bill. I understand that this has not given rise to argument or a feeling that there would be awkwardness or difficulty concerning interpretation by the courts.
We believe that this is a sensible provision. It helps those farmers who have an insubstantial use of their premises for activities which in some circumstances could be rated. At the same time, we believe that, in the light of previous court experience, it will not cause difficulties in interpretation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In response to the question whether anyone was concerned about the use of the word "substantial", I have here submissions from


the Scottish branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which specifically raised the point.

Mr. Temple: They are not local authorities.

Dr. Mahon: These people have made representations to the local authorities since then just as we have to Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that because the local authorities do not make representations we should not make them to Parliament, he is talking through a hole in his head. We are entitled to raise and to discuss these matters in Parliament because the Bill, as it finally goes through Parliament, is what will influence the courts. We have had representations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not dismiss them so lightly. Perhaps he will also answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) about what happens if there are two substantial uses.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Mr. Burden: I am very sorry, but I cannot allow the Third Reading—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Third Reading is tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COURTS [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as respects the Supreme Court and county courts and to abolish courts of assize and certain other courts, it is expedient to authorise any payment out of the Consolidated Fund attributable to any provision of the said Act vesting liabilities in the Accountant General of the Supreme Court.—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — COURTS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause 2

QUALIFICATION FOR JURY SERVICE

The qualification for jury service in England and Wales, including the City of London, shall be citizenship as evidenced by inclusion in the electoral register as a parliamentary elector provided that no one shall be qualified to serve on a jury who—

(a) is over the age of 65 years;
(b) cannot read, write, speak and understand the English language without difficulty;
(c) has not, since the age of 16 years, been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for a continuous period of five years; and
(d) within the previous five years has been in custodial detention in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man, after being convicted of an offence and sentenced to three months or more, or to an indeterminate sentence, without the option of a fine.—[Mr. Gardner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Perhaps it would be convenient for the House if we discuss at the same time Amendment No. 26, in Clause 31, page 23, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Save for persons exempted under the Juries Act 1870 and persons disqualified by virtue of section 10 of that Act every citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and every Commonwealth citizen whose name is included as a Parliamentary elector in the electoral register shall be liable to be summoned to attend as a juror for service in the Crown Court, the High Court and county courts and, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the Lord Chancellor shall be responsible for summoning such persons and for determining the occasions on which they are to attend when so summoned and the number to be summoned;
and Amendment No. 27, in Clause 32, page 24, line 20, at end insert:
(2) Subject to an upper age limit of 65 years and a lower age limit of 21 years, the basic qualification for jury service shall be citizenship as evidenced by inclusion in the electoral register as a Parliamentary elector.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause is a protest against the present jury system and aims at implementing the recommendations of the


Report of the Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. The present system of jury service is a legacy of the reforming zeal of one of our great Home Secretaries, Sir Robert Peel. His Juries Act of 1825 made the basic qualification the possession of property. Essentially, the rule was that a person who was liable to pay rates qualified.
As a result, from 1825 onwards, juries were composed mostly of middle-aged, middle-class men. The astonishing fact to me is that this still applies today. The obsolete provisions of the 1825 Act, which is now a century and a half out of date, still basically govern the qualification for jury service. In practice, eligibility is still confined to householders, who are generally those liable to pay rates. Most husbands—this is an unhappy fact which they have to face—usually pay the rates and therefore qualify, but their wives do not. Nor do the adults living in the same house, if they do not pay rates.
Nor is it sufficient merely to pay rates. They have to be paid separately. If the rates are added to the rent and one pays one sum, one is not qualified for jury service. Thus, there are large blocks of flats filled with admirable people who could well serve on a jury and who qualify in every other respect but who cannot be called because they do not pay their rates separately. This is also the position on council estates.
The number of women who serve on juries is about 11 per cent. of available jurors. One can see, in almost any court today, the truth of that famous description by Lord Devlin, that the British jury is predominantly male, predominantly middle-aged, middle-minded and middle-class. It is a system which is hopelessly out of date and which one might be forgiven for describing as slightly crazy.
Eight years ago the Conservative Government set up a Committee under Lord Morris to examine in great detail the present jury system. It reported in 1965, and its main recommendation was that the old property qualification was no longer relevant to present-day requirements and that it must go. The Committee recommended that, in its place, the qualification should be what it described

as citizenship, as evidenced by inclusion in the parliamentary register. Thus, anyone entitled to vote in a parliamentary election could sit on a jury.
This unanimous recommendation makes complete sense and will probably commend itself to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and to people outside. Among those who are most active in voting the Government to action on this point are women's organisations, who feel—I sympathise strongly with them—that it is wholly wrong that they should, in the main, be excluded from the privilege of jury service. For juries to be made up as Lord Devlin described does not add up in this day and age.
The present age for membership of a jury is 21 to 60. The Morris Committee suggested that the age should be 21 to 65, but that was before the reduction of the age of majority from 21 to 18. Therefore, if the House is to accept—as I submit it should consider doing—the proposition that citizenship is the right qualification, the logical consequence is that, if one can vote in a parliamentary election at the age of 18, one should be able to sit on a jury at the same age.
If this recommendation is embodied in legislation, people from the age of 18 to the age of 65 will be eligible for jury service. This is right if only because of the melancholy fact that more and more young people are unhappily coming before our criminal courts. It is right that young people should have the opportunity of being judged by their contemporaries. In the fifteenth century the qualification for a voter was that of being able to sit on a jury. We are reversing that proposition by saying that if one is entitled to vote, one should be entitled to sit on a jury. That makes sense.
There are a number of provisos in the Clause. One is that a person who cannot read, write, speak or understand the English language without difficulty should not be entitled to sit on a jury. It is clear from the Morris Report that there is no racial undertone in this requirement. It is a sensible attempt to make certain that jury members who may be asked to examine documents and deal with complicated matters of fact in documents should be able to understand what those documents contain. When they are being


addressed by a representative on behalf of the accused, or indeed by the prosecution, it is essential that jury members should be able to understand what is being said to them. In theory—though in practice one hopes this will never happen—it is possible today for somebody to be called for jury service who cannot speak English properly, cannot read English, or cannot even understand the English language properly. In such circumstances justice in the end suffers in a disastrous way.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how this matter is to be tested? I notice that the Morris Committee considered various possible methods of testing, rejected them all, yet nevertheless made the recommendation. It has intrigued me to consider who should do the testing, what the test should be and whether it should apply to North Wales.

Mr. Gardner: I am sure that it does not apply to North Wales. Who would do the testing and what the test should be was not a matter decided by the Morris Committee, which rather sidestepped that issue. However, no difficulty should be experienced in this matter. Those who would have the responsibility of dealing with eligible jurymen and women should, when those people give their particulars, be in a position to decide whether they can speak English properly. It would not be a matter of great embarrassment or difficulty to present them with a card from which they could be asked to read. It is a lamentably common experience in our courts today to hear sworn a member of the jury who is incapable of reading the card on which is printed the oath. A person in such circumstances may find it difficult to speak and read properly because he is a little nervous, though often one feels that it is nothing to do with nerves but more to do with illiteracy. This is a grave difficulty and should be avoided if possible.
6.15 p.m.
The third proviso in the Clause is that a person shall not be qualified to serve on a jury who has not since the age of 16 been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for a continuous period of five years.

This, too, is a recommendation of the Morris Committee which I would commend to the House.
The fourth proviso deals with a very serious matter. At the moment it is possible for somebody who has been convicted of a grave crime to sit on a jury almost as soon as he or she comes out of detention. Paragraph (d) of the Clause is also a recommendation of the Morris Committee and provides that nobody should be qualified to serve on a jury who
within the previous five years has been in custodial detention in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man, after being convicted of an offence and sentenced to three months or more, or to an indeterminate sentence, without the option of a fine.
It may be that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State comes to reply he will rightly tell the House that this Clause has come up virtually at the last moment. I am sure that neither my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary nor the Home Office can have forgotten the fact that the Morris Committee began its examination of the jury system as long ago as 1963, nor the fact that it reported in 1965. If the reports of departmental committees in our Library were not dusted regularly, I have no doubt that by now the Morris Report would be very dusty.
Part V of the Bill is given over exclusively to juries. Clause 35 abolishes the practice of swearing two or more juries together at the same time and abolishes the right of judges to order that juries shall be composed entirely of men. I cannot believe that in proposing these measures the Government did not take into account the Morris Committee recommendations on jury service.
In February I attempted to put down a question to the Home Secretary asking him to take immediate steps to implement the provisions of the Morris Committee. Unhappily, when the time for the reply arrived the Question was not reached. Instead, I received a Written Answer to the effect that the Government were considering the possibility of legislation. On 23rd February in the Standing Committee on this Bill the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) reminded the Under-Secretary of State of the provisions of the


Morris Committee. The Under-Secretary replied that the recommendations
…are receiving sympathetic consideration from the present Government, but I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say when it will prove possible to introduce legislation to give effect to the major intention of the Morris Committee.
He added:
We must wait for the appropriate time for legislation in that field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 23rd February, 1971; c. 365.]
I submit that the appropriate time for legislation to implement the recommendations of the Morris Committee is now. With great respect, I suggest that the country and the House need and deserve something more than sympathy and the promise of action in the vague and indeterminate future. We need, and we need now—and this is the reason for the new Clause—a basic reform of our jury system on the lines suggested by the Morris Committee. This reform is long overdue. The moment to take action is now. That is what I ask for.

Mr. David Weitzman: I am glad that even at this late stage sufficient interest has been aroused in this subject that, apart from the Amendment in my name, No. 27, we should have Amendment No. 26 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), and new Clause 2, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Fylde, South (Mr. Gardner). They all deal with qualification for jury service.
In the Second Reading debate I pointed out that the Morris Committee had been appointed in May, 1963, had reported in April, 1965, had spent a great deal of time, had heard many witnesses, had thoroughly examined all aspects of jury service, and had made 58 recommendations. I asked why the opportunity had not been taken to implement those recommendations, especially as Part V was devoted entirely to juries. I got no reply at all on that occasion from the Attorney-General.
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde, South, who, like myself, was a member of the Morris Committee, pursued the subject perhaps more energetically, because on 18th March he put down a question asking whether immediate

steps could be taken to implement the Committee's recommendations. He got a rather dusty answer, which I should like to quote because it shows how important this matter is considered to be. He was told that the Minister was
…considering this as a possible subject for legislation when…time permits"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 367.]
I have said, and I repeat, that too often committees are appointed which spend valuable time, and then produce detailed reports which are not even discussed but are pigeon-holed and put away for years. Here was the opportunity for action. Paragraph 49 of the Morris Committee Report stated:
Section 1 of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 provides that a 'person shall not be exempted by sex or marriage from the liability to serve as a juror'.
It pointed out, however, that the effect of the requirement that a juror must be a householder means that many women are debarred from jury service. During our deliberations in the Morris Committee we were told that only 11 per cent. of the total number of persons available for jury service were women, and we all know that in court we see how few jurors are women because of this disqualification in not being householders.
The second objection is that a property value laid down in 1825–145 years ago—obviously bears no relationship whatever to values today. In 1825 it may have been reasonable to argue that the £10 freeholder or the £20 leaseholder, or the leaseholder rated at £20 or £30, gave a proper indication of suitability for jury service, but today merely to state that shows its absurdity. The citizen has certain privileges and certain duties. Jury service is one of those duties, and the convenient way in this respect is to adopt the recommendation of the Morris Committee—the record of citizens as set out in the parliamentary register.
The new Clause and the two Amendments seek to obtain the same object. I dare say that the Government spokesman will express gratitude to Lord Morris and the members of the Committee for their very valuable report, and will repeat the assurance that consideration will be given to the matter, and that this is a probable subject for legislation when time


permits. That is not good enough. The Government should amend the Bill now by adopting at least Amendment No. 26. We now have an opportunity to do what is needed. We have a Bill part of which is expressly germane to the question of juries. Surely there can be no excuse on ground of lack of parliamentary time. Now is the opportunity, and action should be taken now.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I support the new Clause so ably moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde, South (Mr. Gardner). Whilst it is perfectly true that the Morris Committee put in two years of service and made 58 recommendations, when it concluded its work the year was 1965. Our predecessors in office took no action on the matter for five years.
Each year the problem has become more urgent because of the very large increase in the number of citizens who do not speak English. It is now becoming quite a frequent occurrence to have those who simply do not understand the English tongue well enough nor understand the English customs well enough really to be entitled or qualified to serve on juries. That being so, it has now become urgent, indeed imperative, that something on the lines of the words in the new Clause
…cannot read, write, speak and understand the English language without difficulty…
should be included in the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Certainly it seems necessary nowadays that we should have some age limit. I might have been prepared to have a slightly higher one than 65 but, on the whole, 65 is probably the right age to settle for. We need not insert the lower limit; if we insert the upper limit, that is sufficient.
Last week, in my experience at the Old Bailey, one was unable to find anywhere at the Central Criminal Court a lady to serve on a jury in a case in which one was challenging in order to try to get a lady to serve. It was particularly suitable that the case should have a number of women jurors. Some of my hon. Friends would agree that there is a preponderance of cases today in which no woman juror serves. It is particularly

necessary in some cases that there should be a fair proportion of women jurors. As the position now obtains whereby the judge can rule that women shall be excluded, we ought to make provision to ensure that women are highly likely to be included and, by the process of challenge, could undoubtedly be included in the normal course of events. Those three matters included by my hon. and learned Friend are absolutely right.
On the fourth matter, I imagine that the great difficulty is testing. Clearly, the whole House would agree that it would be proper, and proper at this stage, to include straight away an arrangement whereby convicted criminals, certainly those who had served a custodial sentence, should not be included. Testing can probably be done only by those in charge of administration at the Central Criminal Court, the courts of assize and the courts of quarter session, or the Crown Courts under the new Act, by those who have to make the necessary arrangements. It seems, therefore, that this will result in a testing arrangement where it will be necessary to obtain from a person who is to be a juror a signed declaration which contains the points that he is under 65, that he can understand the English language, that he has lived here for a period of five years continuously and, furthermore, that he is not a person who has served a custodial sentence. It may be that the Government would have to devise an additional Clause whereby there would be a penalty, and possibly quite a severe one, for a person who refused or made a false declaration.
I mention that matter because the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) adverted to the question in an intervention and said that he had foreseen—we knew at that time that he was in charge of this matter—the difficulties that arose about testing. How does one do this? Obviously, when one sends out the list, which is at random and should properly be at random, one does not know then. It can only be done by a sorting out process by the adminisstrative officer in charge of the court. A suggestion which is at least worth canvassing is that every juryman must sign a declaration form—this is quite common nowadays—in which there are penalties for falsity if it is not accurately


completed. It will also save a great deal of time.
At present, when one finds somebody fumbling over the oath and one does not know whether he is literate, a rather hurried conference takes place, which can be very difficult, about challenging, and one has not much time. A great many of those in the courts would never think of challenging anyway, still less the accused person. That is why it is probably a wise precaution that one should have a form of this kind filled in by people before they take the oath. In this way, difficulties can be avoided.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Generally speaking, I support the hon. Gentleman' arguments. Does he not concede, however, that there may well be a very good way of avoiding jury service altogether in feigning an inability to read, or to write, or to speak and understand the language?

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is true. I do not know that there is evidence of many scrimshankers. It is strange, very often, when a long case is being called, how very fair those who have been called to service usually are when they are warned that they may be required for several weeks, and how very few of them take the opportunity to stand down which is offered. One can test it in that way.
One can test it in another way. Apparently not very many of those who are called for service send in medical certificates or submit other reasons why they should not attend. I have no great experience in these matters, but I understand that there has never been any real complaint of a difficulty in getting jurors in this country to serve, and to serve properly. There is a minimal risk there. If it were found that there were endeavours to evade jury service, that is the type of loophole which could be considered later.
I see no reason for avoiding the task before us by saying that we cannot test this. We can test it, and my hon. and learned Friend's proposals meet the feelings of the country and of the House.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The House will sympathise with the sense of frustration of our two distinguished and learned colleagues, who served on the Lord

Morris Committee on Jury Service over a period of two or three years, at realising that in this great Measure, which has a chapter on jury service, the Lord Morris recommendations on qualifications for jury service have been omitted.
It ill becomes me, as a member of the previous Administration, to reproach the present Government for inaction in this matter. I fear that I appear in sackcloth and ashes—although the matter was the responsibility of the Home Office and not of the Law Officers Department, where earlier action would undoubtedly have been taken. However, I shall not involve myself in inter-departmental unhappiness.
It is regrettable that nothing has been done sooner about this, because the present state of affairs is obviously highly unsatisfactory. The hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken have pointed to the absurd state of affairs that jury selection is on the basis of a property qualification which was set up very nearly a century and a half ago. That was at a time when only those who possessed property were considered to have a sufficient stake in the country to justify their being allowed to take part in public life or to exercise the franchise. Even the Tory Party has moved a little beyond that philosophy, and today it is reassuring that a Conservative Member has supported the principle of the Amendments.
The obsolete doctrine now embodied in the qualification for jury service survives in our public life perhaps, only in relation to the jury service qualification, and it is time that it went. The present set-up is also objectionable, as has been said, because it discriminates against women, for, as has been pointed out, the effect of the requirement that a juror must in general be a householder is that women form only about 11 per cent. of the total number of available jurors. From one's experience in and about the courts, it is rare to find more than two or three women on a jury, indeed, many juries are composed entirely of men. Yet the contribution that women can make to the administration of justice is certainly as good as that of men. The jury should be a mirror of the adult community. Women constitute at least half of that community, and, to coin a phrase, often the better half. So the present set-up which excludes such a large proportion of


them is clearly unacceptable. It is said that women have difficulties because of their domestic responsibilities and problems, but the summoning officer and the judge have power to excuse and to deal with any situation of difficulty.
One or two matters of controversy have been raised in the debate, one of which relates to the age qualification. I see from Amendment No. 27 that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is in favour of 21 as the lower age limit, but, in view of the change in the law which we made when we reduced the age of majority to 18, I agree with the view which has been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that it is now appropriate that the 18, 19 or 20-yearold should take his or her place on the jury. I looked at what the Latey Committee had to say on this subject, and it was this, in paragraph 25:
We have to confess that it would not actually keep us awake at night if people under 21 were to serve on a jury"—
Whether or not they are good sleepers, I do not know. The Committee added:
…if, that is, one 18-year-old were liable to take his seat with 11 older people, since it is statistically unlikely to be more.
If an elderly defendant did not like the idea of a young man or woman being on the jury there would be the power of challenge, and if there were any eccentricity in the mind of a young juror, we have now introduced majority verdicts which could cope with that.
The Latey Committee drew attention to an interesting experiment which was begun a few years ago in Houston, Texas, whereby in certain cases concerning young people juries of young people are empanelled to advise the court. It has been a remarkable success, and the judge in charge of the experiment has reported that offences among young offenders in Houston, Texas, have actually been reduced. He thinks the experiment had a part to play in that result because the young people are being taught respect for the law by participating in it. There is a good deal to be said for this. It is time that young persons were more involved in the administration of justice and the work of the courts, and the sooner it happens the better. It is a particularly important prospect because, un-

happily, the bulk of contemporary offenders are comparatively young, and it is, therefore, right that youth should have a share of the responsibility for dealing with the problem of crime. The situation could not get out of hand because statistically the number of young people would be small enough to prevent any risk of danger emerging from the modest proposal that is made.
6.45 p.m.
I find the issue of the test of literacy rather difficult. The present arrangements do not work too badly. It is possible occasionally for an illiterate to participate in a jury but, generally speaking, he can be spotted. They themselves usually stand down if they find difficulty in reading. In addition, the Crown has the power of challenge if it is obvious that an illiterate has been called to take the oath, and sometimes the defence has the same power. That would depend on what prospects of success in the trial the defendant thought he might have. My view is that to establish a literacy test would be extremely difficult.
I am not attracted by the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) about publishing a document and the imposition of penalties for a false statement by a juror in relation to entries in the document, and I would not be disposed to make any statutory provision as is proposed in the new Clause of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde.
At the end of the day, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington has said, we shall be told, "No go", none of these Amendments is acceptable, and we must await another day. With as much decency as I can reasonably claim, I urge that this matter shall be dealt with as soon as possible so that in this one instance at any rate the present Administration may prove to be more effective and more speedy than its predecessor.

Sir David Renton: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) that the time has come for us to bring up to date the law relating to the qualifications for jury service. Having considered new Clause 2 and the other Amendments, I do not think we should


be wise to legislate in exactly the terms which have been proposed.
I have an open mind about the lower limit of qualification for jurors. If we were to make young people between 18 and 21 eligible we should have to grant exemptions for students, and there would be a large number of exemptions. I am not disputing that in cases where young people are involved it might be useful to have some young people sitting on the jury, but on balance I think 21 is probably the right age.
I am, however, strongly opposed to an upper age limit of 65. if men over 65 are capable of being Prime Minister and leading us to the successful conclusion of a great war, of being Cabinet Ministers, judges and, I dare to say, Speakers of the House of Commons, it is likely that a great many other men and women above that age will make good jurors. If there were to be a limit—and I am not saying that there should be, because a man is as old as his heart—perhaps 75 might be a suitable upper age limit. I hope therefore that the Government will not accept Amendment No. 27.
I come now to the question of what the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South has called the literacy test. Both he and I have had a lot of experience judicially, and it is my experience that we have always overcome this problem without trouble. The court has a discretion to say whether a juror is not to serve. A good way of testing literacy is to insist in every case, as many of us have done, that jurors read the oath from a card when being sworn. That soon detects illiteracy, and it also detects whether they are able to see. Sometimes, jurors say that they cannot read the card because they have not brought their spectacles. In such cases, I have always said, "Very well, you shall not serve on this jury, but you shall be noted for attendance as a juror in waiting the next time they are required." That overcomes that difficulty.
I feel that all the points dealt with in paragraph (b) of the new Clause can be met perfectly well by the existing discretion of the court.
I doubt that it is strictly necessary, as it so rarely arises save in relation to immigrants, to have the limitation provided for in paragraph (c).
I feel strongly, however, that my hon. and learned Friend is on a serious point in paragraph (d). I have a recollection, nevertheless, that we went over this ground when we were discussing the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, and we inserted in that Act a provision—of which we shall soon be reminded, no doubt—which deals differently, though effectively, with this point.
We are in a difficult position to legislate on this matter at this stage of the Bill, for it has already been through another place and the only Amendments which we can consider are those on the Notice Paper now. In my opinion, the Government would be wrong to accept the present proposals. Another place will have no opportunity to use any initiative in the matter. In my view, therefore, there is nothing that we ought to do about it on this occasion. Nevertheless, I hope that this may be the subject of legislation, perhaps fairly minor and brief legislation—perhaps even a Private Member's Bill—in some future Session, and without waiting too many years.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill I sought to insert an Amendment which would implement part of the Morris Committee recommendations. At that time we were told that it was proposed to legislate the following year and, therefore, the matter should be left. However, as a result of the revolt of certain Government back benchers, I was able on Report to introduce a Clause—it became Section 16 of the Act—which exempted from jury service ex-policemen, barristers who had ceased to practise, and certain others for a period of 10 years after they had ceased to practise or hold the position concerned.
We were told that the Morris Committee recommendations would be implemented soon. That was four years ago. I should very much like to see something done to implement the main recommendations relating to jury service.
I see difficulties in the new Clause, however, because Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, made alterations in the law with which the new Clause is inconsistent. Under Section 14 anyone sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more is prohibited for life


from serving on a jury. According to the new Clause, such a person could serve on a jury if he had not been convicted and sent to prison during the previous five years. Section 14 provided also that if a person had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment or more in the previous 10 years—not five years, as in the new Clause—he could not serve on a jury.
Paragraph (d) of the new Clause would make it easier for people of criminal record to serve on juries, and that would be a misfortune. The paragraph would effectively repeal that Section in the 1967 Act, albeit by the back door, which would be undesirable.
For other reasons, I see technical objections to what might be called the official Opposition Amendment; that is, Amendment No. 26. I shall not go into what I regard as those technical objections. It seems to me that the Amendment about which least complaint can be made is Amendment No. 27, put down by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
True enough, my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment puts the upper age limit for jury service at 65. I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) suggest 75. In this very Bill we stipulate that a recorder should retire at 72. We know that a High Court judge can go on till 75. I am interested to note that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire considers that jurors are on a par in their alertness with High Court judges but are really quite superior to recorders. I cannot accept that view.
We can opt for the middle course, for under this Bill a circuit judge sits until 72 years of age, but at the request of the Lord Chancellor he can continue until 75. He is regarded as a hybrid—rather brighter than a recorder but rather less intelligent than a High Court judge.
Last Friday, in the course of moving the Second Reading of the Protection of Human Rights Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) stipulated that the age of retirement for the proposed Commissioner on Human Rights should be 65. We are all over the place, and it is about time

we began to put some coherent pattern into these age limits.

Mr. Weitzman: There are always difficulties in determining age limits of this kind. I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Morris Committee went carefully into the whole matter and considered all sorts of representations. The present age is 60. The Morris Committee, having taken a lot of evidence and considered a great many views, came down in favour of 65. It seems to me that when a question is considered so carefully in that way the age limit of 65 should be accepted.

Mr. Lyons: I am delighted to hear that we are in agreement. I was supporting the age limit of 65 for jurors. Perhaps I did not make it clear.
Implementation of the Morris Committee recommendations would be a great victory for female equality in this country. For the first time, half of each jury would, on average, be composed of women. That should delight the hearts of those involved in the Women's Liberation movement.
It is said that ratepayers, as a group, are more intelligent than people drawn from the electoral roll. I was in court during one of the Kray trials when a number of defence counsel made an assault on the jury panel, making a series of peremptory challenges—they can make up to seven per defence counsel—and, as I sat there, it was difficult for me to see any motive other than the light of intelligence, or lack of it, on the faces of the potential jurors. So even now it seems that it may lie in the hands of defence counsel, if they wish, to eliminate anyone if he looks to them intelligent. Needless to say, in that Kray trial the accused were acquitted after a whole series of objections of a peremptory nature by a number of defence counsel.
In those circumstances there can be no objection on the ground of reduction of intelligence as a reason for delaying the implementation of the Morris Committee recommendation. I heartily support it. It will be a great day for women when it is implemented. If they find that they cannot even support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, I hope the Government will quickly do something about it.

7.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The House has had an interesting debate on the whole question of the Morris Committee Report. It is noticeable from the last few speeches that although those who have spoken have been, to a degree at least, in favour of implementing the Report, there is a variety of views on how it should be done.
We have been particularly fortunate in having had the new Clause moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and discussed with an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). Both were members of the Morris Committee, but even they differ on how the Report should be implemented.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he felt somewhat affronted because he raised the matter in his Second Reading speech and had not had a reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in winding up. It was not my right hon. and learned Friend but I who wound up that debate. Therefore, it would hardly have been possible for my right hon. and learned Friend to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's points, and so far as his stricture is justified, I feel that it must be aimed at me rather than at my right hon. and learned Friend.
The Amendments and the new Clause attempt in their different ways to implement the main recommendation of the Morris Committee. The present provisions on eligibility for jury service go back, I think, to the Juries Act, 1825. I have considerable sympathy with the view that the property qualificaton for eligibility is somewhat unsatisfactory in this day and age. I am aware of the feelings of women's organisations on the matter, that in this regard the law does discriminate against women, a view expressed by a committee of people belonging to my party of which I was a member.
But I must admit at once that the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and certain other hon. Members opposite were psychic as regards what I would say. I am bound to say that, whatever sympathy we might

have with views about the unsatisfactory present nature of eligibility for jury service, I cannot accept—and I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde for saying this—that this Bill at this stage is the right way in which to attempt to implement the Morris Report. It is far too substantial a matter to be dealt with in the last stages of the Courts Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out, even if in principle we wished to accept the implementation of the Report at this stage, neither the new Clause nor either of the Amendments is wholly adequate to achieve that purpose. The Bill started in the other place and is now coming almost to the 59th minute of the eleventh hour. Perhaps that is a little hopeful in view of the number of Amendments to come, but we hope that this is the last day of its passage through this House, so we should be having a substantial Amendment made at a very late stage.

Mr. Weitzman: Can the hon. Gentleman satisfy my curiosity on one matter? Why, when Part V is headed "Juries" and has a number of Clauses devoted to juries, were the recommendations of the Morris Committee not dealt with in the preparation of the Bill?

Mr. Carlisle: Clearly, consideration was given at the time to whether the Committee's recommendations should be implemented in the Bill. But it was decided that it should not, because we should aim to implement in it only those recommendations necessary for the purposes of the Courts Bill, and should remain consistent to the policy followed throughout the Bill, that where possible it was intended to restate the existing law in so far as it was substantive law and was the law dealing merely with the organisation of the courts. Therefore, it was felt that this was not a suitable Bill in which to implement the Report, and that if those recommendations were to be implemented it should be by a juries Bill.
Another reason why this is not a suitable moment is that even if we accepted one of the Amendments or the Clause the Bill would have to return to the other place. At first I was under the misguided impression that the other place


would be unable to amend an Amendment inserted in this House. But I understand that there is a system whereby the other place could reject it and replace it with another. There would be a very grave danger of the Bill's becoming a shuttlecock, going from one House to the other. We believe that its implementation is urgent if the administrative steps are to be taken so that it can be brought into force on 1st January next year, and it would be in danger of being held up because of the nature of the Amendments.
But I do not propose only to rely on the argument of this not being the right Bill in which to implement the Report. I should like to say something about the Report and the views expressed. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde pointed out, he has aimed to implement the Report by taking an upper age of 65, but intending that everyone else on the electoral roll should be eligible, which means that the bottom age would be 18. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North agrees with the upper age limit of 65 but agrees with the original Morris recommendation that the lower age should be 21. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he now feels that it should be 18. The then Minister of State in the Home Office, Lord Stonham, expressed considerable doubts about this in the debates in the other place on the Representation of the People Act, which lowered the voting age to 18. It is not correct to say that since the voting age has been lowered to 18 we should have 18 as the bottom age for eligibility for jury service in order to implement the Morris Report.
It is clear that the Morris Committee gave careful consideration to what would be the appropriate starting age for eligibility for jury service. It did not merely, as I understand it, conclude that it should be everyone on the electoral roll up to the age of 65. Having decided that it should take the electoral roll as a basis, it went on to discuss whether the age of 21 was the right age at which a person should become eligible when he went on the electoral roll or whether it should be a higher age. The Committee's Report said:

The arguments for an age limit higher than 21 would have compelling force if there were any likelihood of particular juries being entirely, or largely, composed of persons not aged over 21. But it is clear…that this is statistically unlikely".
The Committee made a clear decision that 21 was the right age.
I repeat that it does not necessarily follow, in the Government's view, that because one has reduced the voting age one should take the electoral roll qualification as being the qualification for jury service and thereby reduce the age for service to 18. The Government have had to consider this matter very carefully in deciding whether to implement the Morris Report. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not think this in any way an unkind crack, but I point out that, although he said he would allow service from the age of 18 onwards, he becomes wholly inconsistent himself because he retains the provision that one has to have lived in this country for five years after the age of 16. Under paragraph (c), one would not be eligible unless since the age of 16 one had been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of five years. That provision was introduced when it was intended that the lower age should be 21. All I am saying is that this is an example of where, if one accepted the new Clause, one would have considerable difficulty amending it in the time span left to the Bill.

Mr. Gardner: I well understand that there is considerable debate on whether the age should be brought down to 18, but I suggest that, although there may be difficulties, there is no inconsistency in having a proviso as contained in paragraph (c), which was, of course, a recommendation of the Morris Committee.

Mr. Carlisle: But it was recommended when the age was 21. I know what my hon. and learned Friend means, and, clearly, it would be no use considering retaining a recommendation for those who had not lived in this country before that age, but as it stands, since it was geared to eligibility for jury service at 21, it would have to be amended to bring in 18-year-olds as being eligible for jury service. There is obviously considerable dispute about what is the right age.
I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—the question of how one tests whether a person can write, read, speak or understand the English language without difficulty. Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my sympathy would be with the view of my hon. and learned Friend and the Morris Committee that this would be a proper provision to have in the Bill. But if that were so, it would inevitably mean some system of testing. That would mean in turn that the Bill would have to be much longer and very complex, because there would have to be more than a one-clause Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend suggested a signed declaration with a penalty for a false declaration. I understand that the Morris Committee suggested the sending out of a questionnaire, which would be something similar to what my hon. and learned Friend suggests, and it conceded that there would then have to be an offence of a failure to fill it in.
Undoubtedly it would require a considerable amount of legislation to implement the Morris Report. The advice we have had in the Home Office is that the length of a Bill could be anything up to 20 Clauses wholly to implement it anything it would also have to include such matters as the appropriate method of disqualification.
7.15 p.m.
My third point on all these Amendments is with regard to disqualification of those with criminal convictions. The new Clause 2 follows the Morris Committee proposals but ignores the fact, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), that under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, we have much tougher provisions to prevent those with criminal records appearing on a jury than were proposed by the Morris Committee.
Amendment No. 26 does not refer to Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act. Its only reference is to Section 10 of the Juries Act, 1870, which apparently disqualified people who are
… attainted of treason or convicted of infamous crimes…

I feel that the wording of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, is probably more appropriate for modern times than that of the 1870 Act. The reason why I am saying this is not to make drafting points or to pour scorn on the Amendments, but to reiterate the point that the implementation of the Morris Report requires very careful consideration and cannot be done piecemeal, as is attempted here. Our view is that it should be done, if it is to be done, in a comprehensive juries Bill to bring the whole thing up to date.

Mr. Weitzman: Can the hon. Gentleman go beyond the reply he gave to the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner)—that this is a possible subject for legislation if time permits?

Mr. Carlisle: I was coming to that. I cannot go much beyond that. What I can say is that the Government are considering the Report. We have been in office for nearly a year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that the Labour Government had the Report for five years, and I cannot believe that the compartments were quite so watertight that the Attorney-General's Department never knew what the Home Office had in mind for the criminal law. The Government are considering this. I am sure that they will bear in mind the views expressed today, and if it is decided to implement the Report in full, then legislation will be considered. But I cannot go beyond that.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for having ventilated this matter, but I hope that, having done so, he will accept that this Bill is not the way in which it should be done. I hope that he will accept my assurance, as far as it goes, that what has been said on both sides of the House will be taken carefully into account in the consideration of any legislation on this matter.

Mr. Gardner: In view of the statements which have been made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, there would appear to be no alternative for me but to withdraw my proposed new Clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

SAFEGUARDS FOR TRANSFERRED STAFF

(1) The terms and conditions of service of every officer or servant (other than a person for whom provision is made by Schedule 2 to this Act) who immediately before the appointed day is employed on a full-time basis wholly or mainly in connection with a court which is abolished by this Act (and who shall be willing to continue his appointment as such officer or servant) shall be such that—

(a) so long as he is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged immediately before the appointed day, the scale of his salary or remuneration, and
(b) the other terms and conditions of his employment;
are not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the appointed day.

(2) Any personal or reserved salary or salary scale of any officer or servant referred to in subsection I of this section whose appointment as such officer or servant is continued by virtue of an appointment under this Act shall be increased by a like percentage to that awarded to his Civil Service grade so far as such increase is attributable to a rise in the cost of living and for so long as the maximum of his personal or reserved salary scale is greater than the maximum salary attaching to his Civil Service grade and thereafter he shall be entitled to the full amount of any increase in salary awarded to his Civil Service grade.—[Sir Elwyn Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 3 deals with safeguards for transferred staff. It is similar to an Amendment considered in detail in Standing Committee on 23rd February. But it contains an additional paragraph, which appears as subsection (2) and which highlights the anxiety in relation to cost of living increases. The Greater London Assizes and Quarter Sessions Staff Liaison Committee, which has been greatly concerned about this matter, appreciates the assurances that were given by the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in another place when the Bill was dealt with there. But I fear that these members of the staff are still unhappy and not satisfied about the way in which the matter has been left.
When we considered the matter in Committee, we were informed that discussions would be taking place with the Civil Service Commission on how staffs would be graded, and those who were

then concerned with this matter hoped that by the time we reached this stage the Attorney-General would be able to give further assurances in the light of those discussions. I shall wait to see whether anything reassuring can be said by the Attorney-General against that background.
The matters which cause anxiety to these dedicated members of the staff who are to be transferred were considered in Committee in some detail and I will therefore only summarise them at this stage. It is said that the members of the staff concerned would be at risk under the Bill, because the only protection it offers them is that they would retain their present individual pay and incremental progress. Any officer who is appointed to a Civil Service grade and who has a salary below his reserve salary will receive no increase other than his remaining increments rights, if any, until the general salary level of his Civil Service grade achieves parity with his present salary. It is feared that as the cost of living increases members of the staff concerned will fall between two stools—they will not get any such increases awarded to local government officers because they will no longer be such, nor those granted to civil servants until the salaries of their Civil Service grades reach the level of their salaries. They find that what is proposed would in effect put them at a disadvantage compared with the prospects if they were to remain as they are remunerated and subject to their present conditions of service.
Secondly, no safeguard has been offered to them in respect of terms and conditions of service other than salaries. They have indicated to me and generally to hon. Members that there are a number of respects in which Civil Service terms and conditions are unfavourable compared with those now enjoyed by the court staff with whom the new Clause is concerned. They give as examples, first, the depreciation of pension rights arising from abatement of salary on transferring from the contributory scheme to a noncontributory scheme, and, secondly, in some instances a reduction in annual leave entitlement. I do not know whether the Attorney-General will be able to give them any assurance on these matters.
A sense of grievance is left, because they contrast the provisions of Schedule


2(8) in respect of, it is true, a limited range of judges who become circuit judges under the Bill, with the refusal of the Government to accept a statutory obligation to ensure that they have the kind of protection which is given to those judges. The language of the Schedule is that the remuneration and other terms and conditions of the service of a circuit judge are to be no less favourable than those which he enjoyed immediately before the appointed day. There is a feeling that, whereas circuit judges are expressly protected, they are not, and they regard this as a piece of class discrimination.
That is their present attitude. It is imperative that they enter these new arrangements with enthusiasm, and I therefore hope that the Attorney-General will be able to say something tonight to give them further assurance that they will get a fair deal under the new arrangements.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am sure that the House and my right hon. and learned Friend will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) for having so succinctly and fully summarised representations which have been made to a number of hon. Members. I have had letters about the subject only this morning. May I say as an aside that it is a great pity that although a great deal of thought and trouble has clearly gone into making the representations and explaining the case, hon. Members have been told in my case literally only minutes before the matter was raised on the Floor of the House. I made a special effort to come in and tell my right hon. and learned Friend that I hope that he will be able to meet the wishes of the House as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed them.
It would be presumptuous of me to add anything to what has been said. I closely followed exactly what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and it coincided to a remarkable degree with what has been said to me. However, to take up his concluding words, it seems a great pity that when these transitional arrangements are made they should not only be absolutely fair and equitable, but be seen to be so. If I were in the position of these constituents of

mine, I should feel that, although the objective of the Bill and the new administration was undoubtedly desirable, it was unfair that I should get the muddy end of the stick in any way. It does not seem a satisfactory way to allow the Bill to go on the Statute Book without being entirely satisfied that arrangements have been made in every respect.
I therefore hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give an assurance that will satisfy my constituents. That is all I have to say. I simply did not want to have these representations made to me, even at such short notice, without saying that on the face of it I was impressed by what they said and that I do not believe that the Bill should be allowed to pass without the suggested change.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I apologise to the House in that this is a matter which I had not an opportunity hitherto to mention to the Attorney-General. I should have liked to have done so before coming to the debate, but, unfortunately, I was engaged with the tanker which is creating a rather oily atmosphere elsewhere and I have therefore not had an opportunity to mention this matter to my right hon. and learned Friend.
I mention it because the morale in the criminal courts in London is very low. Before reading a passage from a letter which I have received, I should like to say, having had the opportunity to discuss the matter with a member of the staff concerned, that altogether there are about 350 working regularly in the London courts who are affected.
7.30 p.m.
There are many fears. First, we have the associates. There is a fear among those who are members of the Bar that they are on the way out and will be replaced by civil servants. This arose from the fact that a number of civil servants went down and queried whether it was necessary for there to be legally qualified personnel appearing. I am of the view, which I know is shared by the whole profession and the Law Society, that there should be a number of properly qualified personnel able to advise the courts.
They are directly under the judges and I subscribe to the view that, as an undertaking has been given to the pudges that


they will be no worse off as a result of this Bill, then equally those professionally qualified personnel should receive a similar assurance, not, I imagine, by a new Clause being tabled but by a satisfactory assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend.
Next is what might be called the bailiffs and the men who assist the court. Here the problem is twofold. A number of them who are now serving in this capacity are former civil servants now on pension. If they are to become civil servants once more they lose their pension. I understand that efforts are being made to try in some way to secure that they are employed by the Greater London Council. I hope the Attorney-General can tell us something about this because it is desirable that they should continue after pension age in these capacities. We do not want to lose valuable servants who can and do serve in this way, particularly when it might be difficult to recruit fresh personnel.
I want to draw attention to the way in which one officer, at any rate, feels. I will not quote his name but I would be prepared to tell the Attorney-General who it is. He is one of the most respected of those serving in the London courts at present. He says:
The staff of the London courts are naturally reluctant to lose their autonomy and become part of an amorphous court service. If it is for the general good they are prepared to set aside personal considerations and genuinely wish to play their full part in the new courts. They are, though, frankly bewildered at the treatment proposed for them. They cannot understand how they have so failed in their duties that it can be thought fair practice to take away their livelihood and offer only in exchange the chance for most, but not for all, to volunteer to continue in the same jobs under less attractive conditions with worsened prospects and what for many will be a gradually reducing real salary and reduced pension rights. For those who have striven for years to administer justice efficiently with the least inconvenience to others, with little thought to themselves, it is hard to see justice denied. At a time when the courts face a temporary crisis of overloading and a major upheaval, experience and expertise will be at a premium. It seems folly in the extreme to alienate existing staff. Morale is low and a number are leaving. I believe they are not the first nor will be by any means the last. Meanwhile there will be nothing to attract replacements but the courts must continue to function both now and indeed after vesting day.
He ends by saying:

This may sound a little dramatic".
I thought so when I read it, but upon consideration I recognise that, with the need to maintain recruitment, to keep the expertise in these overloaded courts, it is not dramatic. We cannot afford to lose these people.
We are in danger of doing so unless, in some way, we can guarantee that they will not suffer. I recognise the difficulty of having different terms and conditions of service and the attraction of some form of uniformity within the Civil Service. This is a special branch, certainly with regard to the members of the Bar serving in it. If we could find something which would enable those with professional qualifications to receive special consideration and if we could find a means by which those in the more lowly occupations could come under the G.L.C., we might find a way through our difficulties as I feel both sides of the House would wish to do, because this is obviously no party matter.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I share with the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and my hon. Friends who have spoken so far their concern for those who serve the courts in London. A considerable part of my working life has been spent practising in the courts of London and I would certainly like to be able to do all that can be done for them. The new Clause, moved so succinctly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the appeals put with such grace by my hon. Friends, would provide that court staff becoming civil servants would have—in addition to their protected salaries—automatic cost of living increases and full protection in all respects to existing entitlements to leave and to hours where these are better than the Civil Service entitlement.
I, too, have received representations and have studied them with great care. What we are doing in this major Bill is to reorganise the court structure throughout the length and breadth of the land. For this to be possible, we must have a unified court service which includes the present staff and which introduces the new staff who have been with those courts being brought into the new unified court service. Without this, the whole of this project, which is so desperately necessary, would fail.
In combining the present staff and the new staff, assurances have been given which I will gladly recite. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said:
…it is my intention to preserve salaries and pension rights so that individual officers do not suffer when they become civil servants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th December, 1970; Vol. 313, c. 888.]
That is a categoric undertaking with regard to salary and pension rights. It will mean that in this unified service there will be some who will be getting perhaps more by way of salary than others doing comparable jobs.
I had hoped that the gradings of civil servants and particular individuals would have been completed by now. When I spoke in Committee in February, I expressed this hope but they have not been completed. They are, however, at an advanced stage, but I am unable to tell the House that they are at an end. It is the grading of individuals which is still subject to further consideration with the Civil Sevice Department or the Civil Service Commission. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is entering into discussions with the head of each court shortly after Easter.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I have every confidence in the head of each court, but he is not the member of the staff directly concerned. What will be the nature of the staff consultation?

The Attorney-General: The gradings of individuals are still subject to further consideration with the Civil Service Department, but my noble Friend is anxious to have discussions with the head of each court to acquaint himself with the problems which each court faces.
I must be frank with the House. There must be certain difficulties in an assimilation of this size and character, but the Lord Chancellor is determined to be as fair as possible to all the various groups of newcomers in order to produce an integrated and unified service. The unified service should therefore be considered in the context of the newcomers preserving their salary and pension rights. There will be certain advantages and certain disadvantages. But it is not possible to guarantee cost of living increases, especially when people have a higher rate of pay than others doing comparable duties who are of the old style. It is

not acceptable in a unified staff to have different hours of work and different leave conditions. That would create difficulties which could persist for several years.
Therefore, we must consider this matter as a package. There are advantages, for instance, compared with the Civil Service pension scheme. The average salary of an officer over his three years' service will be reduced by 6 per cent. For his superannuation contributions. But the Civil Service scheme is non-contributory. It allows an optional earlier age of retirement of 50 compared with 55 in local government. It has a lower normal pensionable age—60 compared with 65 in local government. The lump sum abatement for a widows' pension is one-third of the total lump sum payable at the end of service compared with two-thirds in local government. Many coming into the service will get better sick leave arrangements.
Above all, in a unified service the staff will have more opportunities for progress and promotion. With a single court, there may be three people competing for a post at the apex of promotion at present. Now, with the wider service, such able people will have the opportunity of obtaining a post compatible with their abilities in a different court. There will therefore be greater scope for advancement.

Mr. Iremonger: Was it not possible before for members of the court service to apply for any post advertised outside their own service? Could they not have taken advantage of that in the past?

The Attorney-General: They may have been able to apply, but we are discussing the concept of one service and of a greater service and therefore greater opportunities within it which will make for the promotion which people can reasonably expect in a greater service, as in any other large unit of organisation.
I appreciate the points which have been made, but if we are going ahead with this concept there must be certain advantages and certain disadvantages in the unified service. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has given a categorical assurance about pension rights and salary rights. He is to speak with the heads of the courts after Easter. The


negotiations on gradings of particular individuals are continuing and will continue with the Civil Service Department. Therefore, while I appreciate the representations made to me personally and which have been presented to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and my hon. Friends, nothing more could or should be done for this service without which the great project which is presented in the Bill would not be able to work.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the status of those in the profession will be maintained and that there is no intention of removing them from the service and replacing them with civil servants who are not qualified?

The Attorney-General: I can give that assurance. People with professional qualifications in the service need have no fear. We shall need their services, and their services will be very welcome. I hope that they will be able to give even better service than they have given in the past.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 4

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CROWN COURT

7.45 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 11, at end insert:
in which case the said judge of the High Court, circuit judge or Recorder shall preside and his decision on any matter shall be the decision of the court".
The Amendment relates to Clause 4, which deals with the composition and powers of the Crown Court when it sits in the City of London. Under the Bill the City of London is put in a special position.
In Committee, concern was expressed about the language in subsection (7) which provides that
…the Lord Mayor of the City and any Alderman of the City shall be entitled to sit as judges of the Central Criminal Court with any judge of the High Court or any Circuit judge or Recorder".
Use of the phrase "sit as judges" gave rise to some concern because it appeared to place the distinguished gentleman in

question on a basis of equality with the judge, with a similar right of participation in discussion and in conduct of the trial and a similar weight in any decision which fell to be made.
The Attorney-General undertook to look at the wording of the subsection. Perhaps he will say something about his further consideration. There was a good deal of criticism in Committee about this special treatment, and it was felt desirable that the position should be made clear, as it is in the Amendment, that it is the judge who presides and his decision should be the decision of the court.

Mr. Clinton Davis: At the end of our deliberations in Committee there appeared to be some doubt about this matter which required clarification. It would be absolutely monstrous if, in view of the sort of cases dealt with at the Central Criminal Court, aldermen were to participate in the decisions.
Both on Second Reading and in Committee I expressed my views forcibly about aldermen being on the bench at all, the way in which they dress up, hold posies, and the rest of it. But those arguments have been well explored, and they were rejected by the majority of the Committee.
It seems plain, however, that it would be completely contrary to the interests of the justice if aldermen were to participate in the decision-making of the Crown Court in circumstances where a judge of the High Court, a circuit judge or a recorder presided.
I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. If they do not, perhaps they will at least give us a satisfactory assurance that aldermen will simply be ornamental, if they are to sit on the bench at all.

The Attorney-General: As I promised in Committee, I have looked again at Clause 4(7) and also at Clause 4(2), which governs the position under subsection (7). Subsection (7) creates an honorary rôle. It does not entitle aldermen to exercise any of the court's jurisdiction. Subsection (2) sets out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) that jurisdiction is limited to High Court judges, circuit judges and recorders sitting with or without justices of the peace. That is specific and exclusive wording. To show how specific it is, one can compare those words


with subsection (3), where a judge of the Court of Appeal may sit and act as a judge of the Crown Court. Those two provisions should be compared with the wording of subsection (7), where the City functionaries are entitled only to sit.
Moreover, by using the words "shall preside", the Amendment must mean that others, namely aldermen, exercise some jurisdiction, and the question would then be, what jurisdiction. They are sitting only because of the centuries-old association with the City. Theirs is a ceremonial rôle rather than a judicial one. The Amendment would blur that by including the word "preside". It is clear that the Lord Mayor and aldermen cannot exercise the jurisdiction of the court, other than that of justices, and the City authorities have no intention of exercising jurisdiction other than that after the Bill has become law.

Sir Elwyn Jones: In that case, why was not it sufficient to say that the Lord Mayor and aldermen shall be entitled to sit with any judge of the High Court, or any circuit judge or recorder? The words which trouble us are "sit as judges". Alternatively, if there was a clear intention that theirs should be an honorary rôle, why not say so? I have to warn the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, one of these days, one of those distinguished gentlemen may take that provision seriously.

The Attorney-General: He would have no jurisdiction to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman need have no fear. Subsection (2) is the jurisdiction. Subsection (7) creates an honorary rôle, and it is the honorary and ceremonial rôle to which the Lord Mayor and aldermen will be and are willingly restricted.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

JUSTICES AS JUDGES OF CROWN COURT

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move, Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 2, after 'peace', insert:
'and the circumstances in which a person concerned with any proceedings prior to the hearing by the Crown Court is to be disqualified from sitting in the Crown Court and the circumstances in which any hearing by the Crown Court is to be valid notwithstanding that any person sitting therein is disqualified'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we are discussing Amendment No. 9, in page 12, line 15, Clause 14, leave out paragraph (e).

Mr. Silkin: The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the position with regard to the right of justices of the peace who have taken part in proceedings in the lower court so far as the proceedings in the Crown Court are concerned related to the same matter, and to enable the rules of court to make provision for showing when and in what circumstances they are to be regarded as disqualified from sitting in the Crown Court and when and in what circumstances the hearing in the Crown Court is to be regarded as valid notwithstanding that a disqualified person takes part.
I moved an Amendment in Committee to Clause 5(1) which would have provided an absolute disqualification for justices who had taken part in earlier proceedings from sitting in the Crown Court. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department drew attention to the fact that Clause 14(2) makes such provision in the case of the hearing of appeals, and added that the practice would be the same whether the matter were before the Crown Court by way of appeal or otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) rightly drew attention to an authority under which the Court of Appeal had held that a decision of the higher court could not be attacked simply because a practice was followed which the Court of Appeal considered undesirable, the chairman of the bench having sat as chairman of sessions.
The Under-Secretary of State, having promised on the earlier Clause to look into the matter again, expressed the view when we came to Clause 14 that the Clause dealt with this matter adequately because the first subsection gave a general power to make rules and the second subsection specifically provided for the making of rules in the case of the hearing of an appeal covering the matters to which reference had been made.
The hon. Gentleman may be right. But one has the curious situation, on the advice which he gave the Committee, that, in respect of matters other than appeals, one has the very general provision in Clause 14(1), which simply enables rules to be made for the purpose of


regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice to be followed in the Crown Court, and that in Clause 14(2), which deals with appeals and contains a specific provision under which rules can be made in respect of the circumstances in which a person concerned with the decision appealed against has to be disqualified from hearing the appeal.
It would appear, at first sight, that the question of disqualification in the rules is to be limited to appeals and not to other cases, as the hon. Gentleman said was the practice.
8.0 p.m.
The purpose of the Amendment is to insert into Clause 5 at an appropriate point, namely, where it deals with the qualifications to be possessed by justices of the peace, the general provision in the same wording as now appears in Clause 14(2) relating to appeals, but covering all classes of cases before the Crown Court. That would enable rules to be made. If it were thought necessary to cover appeals or other matters before the Crown Court, or all matters before the Crown Court, it would introduce greater flexibility in/to the Bill. As we have been reminded on many occasions, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a flexible procedure or, if it is said that that is already done, to make absolutely clear that it is done without having to rely upon the possible doubt arising from the wording of Clause 14. It is for that reason that it becomes necessary to remove those words from Clause 14.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that this is simply a tidying up Amendment to remove any doubt whatsoever. I hope that he will feel able to acept the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: The effect of these linked Amendments would be to provide for the circumstances in which a justice is to be disqualified irrespective of the nature of the proceedings in the lower court.
There are three categories of case where it may be desirable for justices to be disqualified. The first is on appeal to the Crown Court. That is obviously the most important case. Though the rules will be a matter for the Rule Committee, the Government—I say this categorically—intend to ask the Rule Com-

mittee to make such a rule under Clause 14(2)(e). That assurance was given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
There are and will be practical problems. The staff may not know which justice of the peace was sitting. We shall have to rely a great deal on the justices themselves drawing the facts to the attention of the staff when they see the papers. To deal with any accidental oversight, Clause 5(7) prevents any decision being questioned unless objection is taken at the time.
The second category—this again is what my hon. Friend said he would look into—concerns committals for sentence. My hon. Friend and I have together consulted about this matter. I give the categoric assurance that the Government intend to ask the Rule Committee to make a rule in that category of case also.
The third category is the committal for trial. This gives the most practical difficulty. There are many more committals for trial than there are appeals. This creates a considerable practical problem. One has also to consider that in committing for trial all that the committing justice is doing is deciding whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. Therefore, there is no strong ground of principle for disqualifying in that particular circumstance. Many committals under Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act are automatic and the documents may not have been looked at by the committing magistrate. Nevertheless, no administrative action will be taken in regard to the third category. The first two categories have been covered by the undertaking to approach the Rule Committee. On the third category, instructions will be given to the Crown Court staff to take all practical steps to avoid committing justices sitting.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying, regarding the second category, that the rules would be made under the general power of Clause 14(1) and that that is wide enough to cover these matters, notwithstanding the specific reference in Clause 14(2)(e) to rules of this character in relation to an appeal?

The Attorney-General: That was my understanding. Clause 14(1) provides:
Crown Court rules may be made for the purpose of regulating and prescribing the procedure and the practice to be followed in the Crown Court.
I am reminded that Clause 5(2) provides:
Crown Court rules may, subject to subsection (1) above, prescribe the number of justices of the peace constituting the court on any hearing within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, and may prescribe qualifications to be possessed by any such justices of the peace; and the rules may make different provision for different descriptions of cases, different places of sitting or other different circumstances".
The House will appreciate that that has just been presented to me. I should, however, be wholly content that the rule could be made under Clause 14(1). It is certainly the Government's intention to ensure that the rule is made in the second of the three classes which I have mentioned.
In the circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10

HIGH COURT JURISDICTION IN CROWN COURT PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 36, at end insert:
'which, by any provision of any of those Acts, is to be final'.
If you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would also be convenient to take Amendment No. 74 to Schedule 11, which is consequential to Amendment No. 6.
These Amendments correct minor errors in Clause 10(1)(b). The intention was to provide that certain licensing decisions under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, the Licensing Act, 1964, and the Gaming Act, 1968, which cannot under the present law be questioned by applying to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court, could not be challenged by applying to the Crown Court to have a case stated. In other words, the intention was to restate the existing law. However, the subsection could be read as excluding from the jurisdiction of the High Court all decisions under those Acts which would include those in respect of criminal

offences. This was not the intention. Amendment No. 6 makes that clear. So, where the matter concerns a criminal offence under any of those Acts, it will still be possible to go to the High Court on a case stated.

Amendment No. 74 is consequential to Amendment No. 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

PROCESS TO COMPEL APPEARANCE BEFORE CROWN COURT

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 10, line 28, after
"imprisonment", insert "or detention".
This Clause deals with bail, and in subsection (4) sets out the circumstances in which the Crown Court could admit to bail. But failure to incorporate the Amendment would result in an anomaly in the calculation of time counting towards sentence, in that time spent on bail does not count as part of any term of imprisonment, but it is not clear at the moment that the same applies to a detention centre order. For someone who had been committed to a detention centre and later granted bail, the time on bail would count towards that detention centre sentence if the Bill were not amended.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

CROWN COURT RULES

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 13, line 11, leave out "shall consult".
If ever there was a drafting Amendment, this is a drafting Amendment. The phrase "shall consult" appears twice and the Amendment would leave out one of them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISQUALIFICATIONS OF CIRCUIT JUDGES

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 14, line 10, leave out "inability" and insert "incapacity".
I am happy to say that wisdom has pervaded the Government Front Bench, and that at last they are able to accept an Opposition Amendment. This seeks to deal with the somewhat delicate situation when it becomes necessary to remove a circuit judge from office. The language of the subsection at the moment is
The Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove, a Circuit judge from office on the ground of inability or misbehaviour.
Section 19(1)(b) refers to pension rights and to "incapacity". It seems to us—and now also to the Government—that incapacity is a more appropriate expression.
This gives rise to the necessity of a consequential Amendment, and it may be convenient for me to refer to that. Perhaps I will have leave to move it formally at a later stage. It is in Clause 21, page 18, line 2, leave out "inability" and insert "incapacity". This a manuscript Amendment which I understand that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your wisdom and tolerance have indicated that you would be good enough to accept.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct, partly at any rate—not about the wisdom.

The Attorney-General: After many long hours of consideration and deliberation with my hon. Friend, I would agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and recommend the House to accept his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES OF CIRCUIT JUDGES

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 14, line 24, leave out from 'by' to end of line 25 and insert 'Parliament'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient at the same time to discuss Amendments No. 13, in page 15, line 5, leave out from 'as' to end of line 16 and insert 'Parliament may'; No. 14, in Clause 19, page 15, line 9, leave out 'the Minister for the Civil Service' and insert 'Parliament'; No. 16, in page 16, line

25, leave out subsection (7); No. 46, in Schedule 2, page 44, line 25, leave out 'with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service' and insert
'subject to the prior consent of Parliament';
No. 47, in page 45, line 18, after 'Lord Chancellor', insert 'subject to the prior consent of Parliament'; and No. 50, in page 45, line 46, leave out 'consent of the Minister for the Civil Service' and insert 'prior consent of Parliament'.

Mr. Davis: Clause 18 is a bare-faced attempt to remove from the scrutiny of Parliament the question of the salaries of circuit judges. It was conceded in Committee that this was a departure in the law and that hitherto the salaries of high court and county court judges had been determined by an order subject to affirmative Resolution. What is the reason for this new proposal?
In Committee, I thought that the ingenuity of the Government and of the proponents of this proposal was taxed in the extreme in adducing valid reasons for the change. Most of all, it is designed to hide from the terror which has so frequently struck lawyers in this House when confronted with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
I would like to go through some of the reasons which were adduced in Committee and examine their validity. The Minister said, first of all, that there was never a right time to increase judges' salaries in the view of some hon. Members. But, although it is quite right that this matter has been debated from time to time, the fact remains that, whatever objections have been raised, the judges have always enjoyed the increases which have been proposed. At no time am I aware of any denial of those increases. Consequently, that argument has no validity.
Second, the Minister said that, in practice, the salaries of county court judges are linked with those of senior civil servants, which are not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. But the method of determining circuit court judges' salaries is quite different from that of determining the salaries of senior civil servants. The proposal is that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for the Civil Service shall have absolute discretion. So no link has been established between the two prin-


ciples, and none is intended, as the Minister said in Committee. So that argument does not seem to hold water either.
The third argument was that the judges should be independent of the Legislature. Has the fact that this House has always had the right to comment upon increases in judges' salaries ever affected the independence of the judges? In any event, the present proposal seeks to transfer the right to determine the remuneration of the judges to the Executive, so that they would not be independent, according to this argument, in any event. This could not possibly be an improvement upon the present situation.
Of course, the crux of the whole matter comes in the arguments which were then adduced, that this House has witnessed unseemly debate about the increases in judges' salaries. This proposal is in-tended to avoid that. Indeed, it is intended to avoid any debate. That represents the guts of the objection. It was suggested in Committee that we might be able to debate the matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but that is not so, and the Minister said that it was not so.
It is true that one would be able to debate this issue, if one were successful in the Ballot, on an Adjournment debate, but I scarcely think that that is very satisfactory. Very few people can intervene in most Adjournment debates.
The third possibility of questioning the subject of increases in judges' salaries would arise at Question Time. However, I suggest that that is not the best time at which to debate complex matters and that it does not give effective opportunities to Members of Parliament to question these matters.
Why should M.P.s be denied the opportunity of pointing to disparities between proposed increases for the judges, which can sometimes be substantial indeed, and the inadequate proposals, if any, for pensioners and others. Why should the House be denied the opportunity of commenting on the timing and scale of the increases? Sometimes comparison between the increases is grotesque and a totally different set of standards is applied. This is what I find objectionable in the Clause as drafted.
Why should the Government be so sensitive about debating judges' salaries?

To deny Parliament this right is to lend sustenance to the arguments of those hon. Members of the House who allege that lawyers are afraid to debate these issues. I do not believe that lawyers are afraid to debate them. It would be a sad reflection on lawyer Members of this House if that were the case. It is true that on some occasions in the past when debating judges' salaries some Members of Parliament have taken the opportunity to defame the legal profession. That is a matter to be deprecated, but it is totally irrelevant to the basic argument.
If hon. Members of the House wish to criticise any profession and it is germane to the debate, I do not see why they should be disfranchised from so doing. They have a right to say freely and fairly what they want to say about a profession. I believe that the legal profession is sufficiently well represented in this House—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is over-represented.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend says that the profession is over-represented in this House, but I cannot believe that that is right. However, the lawyers can well take care of themselves, and the legal profession and the judiciary no doubt will survive any such attacks. However, the attacks which may occur because of this attempt to prevent Parliament from debating these issues will be infinitely more damaging to the legal profession and, indeed, to Parliament, because both will be very much more vulnerable to attack.
The Clause suggests that circuit judges should be treated differently from High Court judges, because at present Parliament will still have the right to discuss any increases proposed by order in the salaries of High Court judges. This is a first step towards changing the system. This was an inference which we were entitled to draw from the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State. More might be said for this proposal if civil servants, judges, Members of Parliament, and, indeed, all servants of the State were to be treated in a similar manner. But that is not the case. It is not right that a piecemeal change should be introduced in this way into legislation. I have doubts whether it is right for these


other servants to be outside parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, I feel that the Clause as it stands contains little merit.
I have great admiration for the British judiciary, which is an example in the Western world. We have a judiciary of which we can be proud. It is also right that those who attain high office in the judiciary should obtain salaries commensurate with their substantial responsibilities. It is also true, particularly among the higher echelons of the judiciary, that when appointed they have to give up substantial remuneration at the Bar. Indeed, we may now find that solicitors will have to give up substantial remuneration on being appointed to recorderships or to circuit judgeships.
There is much more to a judicial appointment than the salary. It is the attainment of the pinnacle of the legal profession; it offers important status and also imposes immense responsibility. But this is no reason why Parliament should be denied the opportunity to examine the orders which hitherto have been laid before Parliament in determining whether an increase should be granted, whether it is appropriate at any given time, and whether the political circumstances which are then current are such as to grant to one section of the community increases which are out of proportion to increases granted to other deserving people in our society. The Clause is dangerous since it seeks to deny to Parliament the right to examine and scrutinise matters which hitherto Parliament has carried out properly and fairly.

Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) when he says that this provision which we seek to amend is "bare-faced". I differ from him entirely since I regard it as a sly little provision, which would have slipped through the House of Commons if it had not been for the vigilance of my hon. Friend and also of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons).
The Under-Secretary of State in Committee admitted, in column 257, that Clause 18 introduces a departure in the law. He also admitted, in column 260, that the determination of salaries may in future be made "without parliamentary

approval". In seeking to justify this change in the law, he enunciated the extraordinary doctrine
Salaries of public servants are … better kept … away from parliamentary scrutiny, where that is possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 16th February, 1971; c. 268.]
We are to be allowed to authorise the payment of these salaries and any increases, but we are not to be allowed to scrutinise what these increases should be since apparently this is regarded as a somewhat tasteless exercise.
What scrutiny would there be if this provision and the consequential provisions in Clause 19 and Schedule 2 were allowed to go through unamended? My hon. Friend has demolished the argument that it could be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and he has also demolished the argument that it would be any use raising it on the Adjournment: one hon. Member speaking for a quarter of an hour, replied to by a Minister speaking for a quarter of an hour, and perhaps someone else getting in for a couple of minutes. He mentioned the unsatisfactory nature of the Parliamentary Question procedure: a few seconds of give-and-take, if one is lucky to get in an Oral Question, and under the proposals of the Lord President which we shall debate later this evening, getting in a supplementary question to one's own Question will be even more difficult than it now is.
8.30 p.m.
Yet we have here the only kind of scrutiny which would be available if the Bill went through unamended. Concentrated scrutiny of an Order requiring parliamentary assent is to be ruled out. But why should the salaries of circuit judges be kept from parliamentary or any other form of public scrutiny? The Under-Secretary spoke in Standing Committee about the undesirability of the salaries of public servants—his phrase—undergoing public scrutiny, but at this very moment the salaries of a whole group of public servants, the postmen, are having to undergo public scrutiny before a committee of settlement—not just a comfortable little fix between the postmen, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the civil servants. The judges will have a little fix between themselves and the Lord Chancellor and


the civil servants, but these lower-paid public servants must have a committee of settlement.
Another group of public servants, the electricity workers, had to justify themselves very painfully before the Wilberforce court of inquiry. Another group of public servants—the Under-Secretary's phrase—who are anxious for and, in my view, highly deserving of a pay increase are the teachers, but the teachers have to justify themselves before Burnham.
Clause 19 and Schedule 2 deal with pensions. What about ordinary pensioners—not judges retiring on superannuation, but retirement pensioners? They have to await, not a little fix, not even an Order, as the judges have at the moment and as the High Court judges will still have—but a Bill to be passed through both Houses of Parliament with full debate, and which will mean their waiting six months before getting their increase.
The retirement pensioners in my constituency would be delighted if the meagre £1 they are to be given in six months' time could be fixed quietly and quickly, at a stroke, between the National Association of Old-aged Pensioners in Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Social Services. That would please them very much, indeed. Instead, they have to wait for six months, by which time the £1 they will get will have had more than three-quarters of its purchasing power eaten away, according to an Answer I got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today that, at the present rate, the value would be down to 23½ pence.
We can compare my pensioners with one Lancastrian, the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster, whose pension is dealt with in Schedule 2. He gets his pension increase at a stroke, because, although the pension is determined by a scale, that scale is linked with a salary increase which is decided quietly and peacefully behind the scenes between Ministers and the judges, with no argument at all.
That salary increase determines the pension of the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine and the circuit judges, who get what my retirement pensioners do not get, which is a genuine earnings-related pension with the earnings relation laid down in the Bill. But that is not to

happen to these people, who deserve a great deal more: it will happen to these judges and others who will get, not fifty measly pounds a year, eaten down to 13s. by the inflation which the party opposite has brought about. These people are getting an increase of £2,100 fixed up nicely and, in future, the Minister will not have to justify that £2,100—or more—to the House. He will just do it.
In the Standing Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
… we must try to ensure that judicial salaries keep pace with the salaries of people holding other important offices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 16th February. 1971; c. 258.]
That is a nice, calm, humane viewpoint, but this is exactly the argument that two other groups of public servants—to use the Under-Secretary's phrase—are using at the moment. The postmen and the railwaymen are saying that if the men from Ford's get 32 per cent. increase over two years, they are entitled to it, and not to the much smaller increase which the Government grudgingly offer them. The Secretary of State for Employment has got into a great tantrum with the C.B.I., saying that other people must not follow, yet the Under-Secretary hives off—because the Government like hiving-off—the judges from this refusal to compare, and says that other people in important offices who get large increases must not leave the judges lagging behind.
What matters to the Government is not whether one is a public servant—because postmen and railwaymen are public servants—but whether one is an expensive public servant on the old boy network or the club network. There is no doubt that the previous procedure, which the Government are attempting to eradicate, is an embarrassment to them. That was shown by the debate which we had in December on the two Statutory Instruments. The Government are now shiftily trying to rid themselves of this embarrassment, and the House ought not to allow them to do so.

The Attorney-General: This series of linked Amendments seeks to impose parliamentary control in two respects, on allowances and pensions of judges, and to retain it in respect of pay. They seek to amend a Clause in the Bill, which was presented some time ago and which has been debated on Second Reading and in Committee, and which any hon. Gentle-


man who wishes to contribute to the debate obviously must have read and studied.
I refer first to the two other linked Amendments which we are discussing, namely, Amendments No. 13 and No. 14, because they deal with allowances and pensions, before I return to the master Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13 deals with the allowances which are to be paid to circuit judges. This would be an innovation. It would mean that there would be parliamentary control over what allowances should be given to a circuit judge for his subsistence, or what expenses should be paid as he travels from court to court by car. Amendment No. 14 deals with pensions. At present there is no parliamentary control over pensions, but a simple mathematical formula is set out in Clause 19(2).
The master Amendment No. 12 deals with pay, and here the Government, as is categorically set out in the Clause, have taken the opportunity to put all of these judges, some of whose salaries are already fixed administratively, in the same position as the equivalent judges in Scotland have been since 1907. The Scottish judges of equivalent rank could not be considered to be less independent or more dependent than the English judges. It is to put them in the same position as other public servants, such as the chairmen of nationalised industries, senior officers of the Services and senior civil servants, and to put those persons who work and serve in a public sector where there is no negotiating machinery into the same category and under the same conditions, subject to a review body.
At present, the salaries of the official referees, the City Judges, the chairmen of quarter sessions and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions are all fixed administratively. We are seeking to put all the circuit judges into the same position. By so doing we shall not in any way affect their independence, and may, I suggest,

preserve their independence the better for not having to rely upon Government initiative to deal with salaries or control them by under-paying. That is a mere debating point which at this stage I shall not go into much further.

But there are certain unfairnesses in the present position about pay. There is the inability to back-date it, and the delay which is sometimes imposed—when, perhaps, salaries ought to have been increased—through the parliamentary timetable. So it has been a categorical decision, as set out in the Bill, that these judges will have their salaries dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.

As has been pointed out by the Leader of the House, and as, indeed, there will be a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow, they will come within the purview of the Review Body, whose report will be published in the normal way. The Review Body will be advisory to the Government. Its findings will not be binding, admittedly, on the Lord Chancellor, but advisory. It may be that the Review Body will advise that there should be a link between this category of judge and, perhaps, the Civil Service, or whatever it may be. That Review Body will frame the recommendations made to the Lord Chancellor. The recommendations will not be binding upon him but he will at least take them into account when settling the salaries. Clause 18 sets out a categorical decision which has been taken, and I recommend the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Attorney-General: I have finished.

Question put, That the Amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 79.

Division No. 340.]
AYES
[8.41 p.m.


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Booth, Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.



Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Russell
Mr. Clinton Davis and




Mr. Gerald Kaufman




NOES


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pounder, Rafton


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Boscawen, Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bowden, Andrew
Hicks, Robert
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hilt, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Churchill, W. S.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Coombs, Derek
Knox, David
Spence, John


Cormack, Patrick
Longden, Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Crowder, F. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Curran, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Molyneaux, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mudd, David
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Onslow, Cranley



Gummer, Selwyn
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Keith Speed.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian

Clause 20

JUDGES OF COUNTY COURTS

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 16, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Every Circuit judge shall, by virtue of his office, be capable of sitting as a judge for any county court district in England and Wales, and the Lord Chancellor shall assign one or more Circuit judges to each district and may from time to time vary the assignment of Circuit judges among the districts.
(2) Subject to any directions given by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, in any case where more than one Circuit judge is assigned to a district under subsection (1) above, any function conferred by or under the County Courts Act 1959 on the judge for a district may be exercised by any of the Circuit judges for the time being assigned to that district.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time the following further Government Amendments, which are all linked: Nos. 18, 19, 33, 54, 55, 58, 64, 73, and 77.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Yes, if that is the wish of the House.

The Attorney-General: In effect, these are all drafting Amendments in the sense that they restate the provisions of Section 4 of the County Courts Act, 1959 in terms more appropriate to this Bill, and they simplify the procedure whereby circuit judges and deputies are to act as judges for county court districts.
Under Clause 20 as at present drafted, circuit judges do not automatically become judges for county court districts but must be appointed under the 1959 Act. The effect would be that, when a circuit judge was to sit temporarily as the judge for a particular district, it would be necessary to appoint him to that district under Section 4 and then, when he had sat, to make a further order under Section 4(5) to the effect that he should cease to be a judge for that district. It would be necessary also to make a double appointment in the case of a deputy judge. This is an unnecessarily cumbersome machinery, and the Amendments are intended to simplify it.
Amendment No. 17 provides in subsection (1) that every circuit judge—and, under Clause 24(3), any deputy—is to be capable of sitting as a judge for any county court district.
Amendment No. 18 is consequential. The new structure of Clause 20 makes it misleading to speak of Lords Justices, High Court judges and recorders sitting as though they had been appointed for every county court district. Under the Amendment, any such judge will
be capable of sitting as a judge for any county court district".
Amendment No. 19 sets out the circumstances in which a circuit judge who is not assigned to a district may act as the judge for a district. This is to be


at the direction of the Lord Chancellor or where it appears to the circuit judge that the judge for the district is not available. These matters were overlooked and are now corrected.
The remaining Amendments are all consequential, making the necessary adjustments. They are, as I say, drafting Amendments, in effect, removing an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 18, in page 16, line 40, leave out from 'Wales' to 'if' in line 41 and insert 'and'.

No. 19, in page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) Notwithstanding that he is not for the time being assigned to a particular district, a Circuit judge—

(a) shall sit as a judge of that district at such times and on such occasions as the Lord Chancellor may direct; and
(b) may sit as a judge of that district in any case where it appears to him that the judge of that district is not, or none of the judges of that district is, available to deal with the case.
(4) So much of Part I of the County Courts Act 1959 as makes special provision in relation to county court distri cts within the Duchy of Lancaster shall cease to have effect.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 21

APPOINTMENT OF RECORDERS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that there is a manuscript Amendment, which has been accepted.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has already been discussed at great length, so I shall deal with it formally.
I beg to move as a manuscript Amendment, in page 18, line 2, leave out "inability" and insert "incapacity".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

CIRCUIT JUDGE OR RECORDER SITTING AS HIGH COURT JUDGE

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 19, line 4 after 'of', insert:
'continuing to deal with'.

It may be convenient to discuss with it Amendment No. 21. These are drafting Amendments. The effect of Amendment No. 20 is to enable a circuit judge or recorder who is requested to sit as an additional judge of the High Court to attend at the High Court to complete a part-heard case. It was not entirely clear that subsection (4) enabled a circuit judge or recorder to return to deal with a case which had been adjourned part-heard. The Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt. Amendment No. 21 completes the power of a circuit judge or recorder sitting in relief on the High Court bench to dispose of a part-heard case.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 2l, in page 19, line 5 leave out 'he may have heard' and insert:
'may have been begun before him'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 24

TEMPORARY HIGH COURT AND CIRCUIT JUDGES

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 20, line 9 after 'of' insert:
'continuing to deal with'.
I think that it would be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 23 at the same time. These are linked Amendments, the purpose of which is to enable a deputy High Court or deputy circuit judge to dispose of a part-heard case.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 23, in line 10 leave out 'he may have heard' and insert:
'may have been begun before him'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 26

MASTERS AND REGISTRARS TO BE APPOINTED BY LORD CHANCELLOR

Mr. Ian Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 21, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that it would be for


the convenience of the House if we discussed with it Amendment No. 25, in line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Percival: Subsection (1) alters the method of appointment to a substantial number of offices compendiously referred to as minor judicial appointments. But I know that no one present will be misled by that descriptiton into under-estimating the importance of those offices. They are all essential parts in our system for the administration of justice, but they are offices of which much less is heard and much less is known than is commonly known about those judicial officers who operate in public. I have little hesitation in saying that there are some of those offices about which I know very little, and I shall, therefore, confine my observations to the Masters of the Queen's Bench Division, about whom I do know a good deal.
The essential features that we should bear in mind about all these officers is that they are doing very special and very specialised jobs. The Queen's Bench Masters deal with all the intricacies of the procedure leading to trial. Theirs is a highly specialised job requiring very particular qualifications. The question here is what is the best way of ascertaining which of those people who may apply for those offices have the best qualifications? The Lord Chancellor already has responsibility for making an immense number of appointments. After the Bill is in force he will have responsibility for appointing even more.
9.0 p.m.
No one could expect the Lord Chancellor to know personally the qualities and qualifications of every applicant for every appointment for which he is responsible. It is for that reason that I suggest, even at this late stage, that the present system is preferable to that which is proposed. The present system is that the appointment of Queen's Bench Masters is made alternately by the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice. I suggest that they are the most suitable people, because, of the persons holding high judicial office they are closest to the work of the Queen's Bench Masters and are those most likely to have personal knowledge of or to be in a position to obtain information about the persons who apply for these appointments.
As I understand this Clause, in future the appointments will not be made by either one of them alternately or at all, but will be made by the Lord Chancellor. The whole of my case—it is nonetheless strong for being brief—is that what one should have in mind here is simply who are the persons closest to the work in question and closest to the people who would be applying for these appointments and, therefore, in the best position to decide which of the applicants is most suitable. I suggest that the answer to that question is the persons in whom responsibility lies now and that, accordingly, there is no case for a change.
Subsection (3) also relates to Queen's Bench Masters but raises a different point. There are eight of them, and at the moment promotion is by seniority, and seniority alone. Whoever is the senior Master in office automatically becomes the Senior Master and Queen's Remembrancer. It is necessary to remember the particular nature of their work and the fact that there are only eight of them. This small body must work in close harmony and give mutual help to one another. They are thus in a situation where trust and understanding between them are of first importance.
It may be that those who have never worked in a little set-up like that may find that difficult to understand, but I hope not, because it seems to me that all I am doing in making that observation is introducing human nature into what otherwise might be considered just an administrative exercise. Human nature being what it is. I suggest that one of the most vital elements in a small establishment like that is that they should be able to enjoy complete mutual trust and understanding amongst one another.
But what would happen if the seniority rule were departed from? If an outsider were brought in, is it not inevitable that this would give rise to feelings of disappointment, whether legitimate or not, whether they were strongly or not so strongly based, and that this might very well lead to unrest, disquiet, and lack of that mutual trust and understanding which, I hope, everyone will appreciate does matter? If one must depart from the seniority rule, then I hope that I shall hear from my right hon. and learned Friend that the one thing which


is further from anyone's mind is the bringing in of someone from outside.
The other possibility is that one of these eight might be promoted above the heads of the others. It is not difficult to picture what a difference that might make to a small team like this, inducing for the first time the thought that if someone causes the powers that be to think, whether it be true or not, that he is a more suitable person for promotion, he may get promotion that much more speedily than would otherwise have been the case.
I dare say that I shall be told that promotion out of order of seniority would be only on grounds of merit. That sounds all right; but can we be sure that the powers that be are always in a position to make such a fine judgment of merit? May it not be that either by accident or by design, someone might so act as to bring his own prowess to their attention, might create an impression of great activity which might be mistaken for merit? It is a dangerous horse to ride. It sounds all right in theory, but it is much more difficult to apply in practice. What can be the harm in sticking to the present system, well understood, not suggested by anybody ever to have done any serious harm, a workable system?
It is for these reasons that I put forward these Amendments to leave out both subsections. I have been here long enough not to be so optimistic as to hope that both will be accepted, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to give a very firm assurance, as I expect he probably will, that there will be little difference in practice in the appointment of the Masters. I expect him to say that the Lord Chancellor would certainly take the advice of those who at present make the appointments and would be unlikely to do other than accept that advice. Some assurance on those lines would give great comfort to the persons concerned, as it would to me.
I hope that the Attorney-General will go so far as to say, likewise about subsection (3), that it would not be contemplated that an outsider would be brought in and given the senior job over the heads of the others save in the most exceptional circumstances, and that what has worked so well in the past will be adhered to

unless at any particular time there are strong grounds for departing from that rule. I beg to move.

The Attorney-General: There are three things on which I can agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival): first, that a case is no less strong for being brief; secondly, that he has been here long enough not to be confident or optimistic at this stage that Amendments will be accepted; thirdly, and most important, that the Masters are persons of great distinction who carry out a very important part of the judicial process.
We have been grumbling about the inability of the previous and present Administrations to implement the Morris Report, but it will indict many Administrations that it was in 1915 that it was first recommended that the appointment of all Masters and Registrars should be conferred on the Lord Chancellor because he was a Minister with responsibility to Parliament, but it is only now, in 1971, that that is being effected. It is time that the change was made. It is right that such an important appointment should be made by a Minister responsible to Parliament. The independence of the Masters, no less than that of the judiciary appointed on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, is not affected by the faot that he has made that recommendation, and it will remain exactly as it has been—entirely unaffected.
I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that my noble Friend has given undertakings to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls that in the appointing of Queen's Bench Masters in future he will, as is the case with other judicial appointments, consult the heads of the divisions concerned.
Since the 1939–45 war it has been the trend for the Lord Chancellor to make the legal appointments. Many used to be in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but more and more they have come to be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Opportunity is now being taken to effect this with regard to these distinguished members of the judiciary.
As to Clause 26(3), I appreciate the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. This would be a matter for my


noble Friend. Merit ought to be predominant when making a Senior Master.
The Amendments generally deal with a general trend whereby appointments should be made by the Lord Chancellor, who is a Minister responsible to Parliament. I hope, in view of the undertakings given by my noble Friend to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, that my hon. and learned Friend will consider withdrawing the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: Having regard to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend in relation to Amendment No. 24, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. In the circumstances, it is better that I say nothing more about Amendment No. 25.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33

SUMMONING IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 24, line 34, leave out 'shall, if any party to the proceedings so requests' and insert:
'may, if the court thinks fit'.
This Amendment arises out of an undertaking I gave in Committee to meet a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). It is to do with praying the tales. We heard many stories in Committee about what happens in various Welsh courts when jurors are thin on the ground. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the court has the discretion to pray a tales rather than it having to be done at the request of one of the parties.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Member for moving this Amendment. I should make it clear that the praying of tales is not a Celtic custom and that tales is not a Welsh word. It is an ancient practice that is very occasionally revived. I welcome the Amendment because if the power exists obviously the court ought to be able to exercise it, but I hope that when the Home Office looks at the jury system and juries generally it will have another look at this. The idea of putting a rope at each end of the Old Bailey and roping in those who may be

standing about tales de circumstantibus to form a jury is something out of which we should have grown. I hope that some alternative arrangements will be made. No doubt they will protect counsel in future from the ignominy to which I was subjected when I was invited by the Lord Chief Justice to pray a tales without knowing whether a tales was a man or a horse.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF JURY SERVICE

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 26, line 25, at end insert:
Provided that—

(a) the Lord Chancellor shall review the scales of payment annually, and
(b) any juror who claims to have suffered undue financial hardship due to the length of a trial be entitled to apply to the appropriate officer of the Crown Court for an increase in the maximum loss of earnings allowance to a sum not in excess of double the maximum prescribed in the current regulations after the first 20 days of a trial. If dissatisfied with the decision of the appropriate officer the juror may appeal to the presiding judge whose decision shall be final.
The intention behind the Amendment is provide the long suffering juror with additional financial help in extremely long cases.
A juror is entitled to a subsistence allowance so that his out-of-pocket expenses are met, and there is provision for his meals, with a travelling allowance and compensation for loss of earnings. The scales of compensation are established by the Home Secretary. In future when the Bill has been enacted, they will be established by the Lord Chancellor. The maximum scale is £4 a day, but after the first 10 days the maximum is increased to £8. It appears that the scales were last reviewed in March, 1970. There is no right of appeal by a juror against a decision in respect of compensation for loss of earnings.
That real financial hardship and difficulty can ensue for a juror in a long case can hardly be gainsaid. It is not sufficient to say in rebuttal of the arguments set out in the Amendment that a person may apply to be excused if he is able to


establish that considerable hardship may result. It is true that he may be able to do that, but it is equally true that his application may not be admitted. In those circumstances, a juror could conceivably suffer great difficulty.
The Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that a great responsibility was involved in being a member of a jury and that it is, in effect, part of the fabric of the democratic society in which we live. That is absolutely right: it is a great responsibility. But I do not think the argument he sought to adduce, namely, that the inconvenience which jurors may occasionally suffer is part and parcel of this responsibility, is a fair argument.
I believe that we should endeavour to preserve our jury system. It has worked well, and I hope that it will continue to work well. But I do not believe that people who undertake this responsibility—and they are compelled to undertake it—should have to face undue hardship. The philosophy is the same as that which for many years has suggested that certain people in public life, such as nurses, because of the responsibility that they carry, should not have a satisfactory standard of living. This philosophy is wholly wrong.
It was also said in Committee that until 1949 the hardship which jurymen experienced was greater than it is today because they were not entitled until that year to claim compensation for loss of earnings. That argument is not relevant to today's considerations. If injustice was done to jurors in the past, there is no reason why it should be perpetuated. It was rectified to some extent in 1949.
The Morris Committee stated that the intention was not necessarily to reimburse jurors completely for losses which were incurred, but to ensure that there was no undue hardship. That argument was prayed in aid by the Under-Secretary in Committee. But that is exactly my point. As the law stands, undue hardship is a real possibility. Cases are frequently complex and very long. I have no statistical information to support that assertion, but I believe that there are more very long cases today than there were in the past. There was a recent case at the Central Criminal Court which in fact collapsed but which, as it

involved a number of very serious fraud charges, could have lasted many months.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide some reasonable safeguard for the professional man in a small practice or the business man with a small business whose absence from that professional life or business could be extremely injurious. It would provide him with some protection in very long cases. That is why I specify the period of 20 days. The Amendment would enable the maximum allowances to be increased, in suitable circumstances of hardship, to double that at present prescribed, after the first 20 days. The £8 allowance, in those circumstances, would rise to £16 a day. It would also offer the aggrieved juror some redress against any arbitrary or capricious decision on the part of an official determining how much he should receive. I do not suggest that decisions of that kind are made frequently, but it is conceivable that such decisions have been made and might be made in the future. Increasing the scale in suitable cases and giving a right of appeal to the presiding judge for the aggrieved juror would overcome a real difficulty.
I do not see why a juror should be denied this elementary right. The Amendment would accord justice to those who are compelled to serve as jurors. I suggest that they should be protected by some such provisions.

Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of the Amendment is twofold. First, it provides for the annual review of scales of payment to jurors. Secondly, it provides for an increased loss-of-earnings allowance for those involved in very long cases.
The regulations governing allowances to jurors are made under the authority of Section 1 of the Juries Act, 1949. They are and have always been made administratively and, while I accept that the allowances should be looked at from time to time and raised so as to keep pace with any major change in the value of money, it is not really necessary to write in a statutory annual review of the kind that the Amendment requires. I think that we should continue with the administrative arrangements that we have.
As the hon. Gentleman said, these payments have been reviewed, the subsistence allowance as recently as 1971 and


the loss-of-earnings allowance in 1970. They will be kept under review. But I do not think that there is any advantage in making a statutory requirement for an annual review.
The hon. Gentleman said that he objected to the suggestion that it should be to cover undue financial hardship; he felt that it should be to compensate for loss. However, I cannot help noticing that the second part of his Amendment starts with the words,
any juror who claims to have suffered undue financial hardship".
It has always been accepted that one of the duties of a citizen in a free society is to be willing to serve on jury service. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have always accepted that it is wrong to impose undue financial hardship on anyone being asked to carry out a public service. We have recently—from last week, I believe—implemented the payment of a loss-of-earnings allowance to those who sit as magistrates for that very reason.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's proposals are necessary. We can never completely succeed in compensating the man on the higher income who is required to serve on a jury and we can never completely compensate the self-employed man or the salaried man, except that the salaried man probably suffers no loss as a result of sitting on a jury.
We have the provision that, after 10 days, a man is entitled to the maximum of £8. I do not think that it can really be suggested that that should be put up to £16, which would be the effect of the Amendment. If we accept the Amendment we are saying that even those in the higher income bracket should be compensated entirely for any loss which they might incur through doing their duty as citizens. I do not believe that undue hardship exists.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to look regularly at the allowances which are payable. I accept his sincerity in moving the Amendment and his concern that jurors should be adequately protected against any loss.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 26, line 31, leave out "not".
This Amendment deals with coroners' jurors. I should say at the outset that, through an error, the name of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) appears on the Amendment. It was his intention that it should appear only on Amendment No. 29, which we have just debated. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to make the situation clear, which I willingly do.
I understand that the gravamen of the Government's case on this matter is "Wait for Brodrick". It is rather like "Waiting for Godot." We seem to have been waiting incessantly for seven or eight years. I do not suppose that it is the fault of any hon. Member that we have been waiting all this time. After all, it is a Committee which is sitting.
In an answer on 5th April by the Under-Secretary of State, I was told that the reason for the delay is the
complexity of the Committee's task, which is not confined to a review of coroners' courts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 54.]
We understand that the report will be published shortly, which, in parliamentary terms, means some time towards the end of the year or perhaps the beginning of 1972. It is unsatisfactory that this situation should have developed.
We are being asked to legislate for coroners' jurors and to make an exception for them to be dealt with differently from all other jurors. We are indeed at the stage, approaching Easter, when Jewish people, on the Passover night, ask, "Why do we treat this night differently from all other nights?"
9.30 p.m.
Why do we treat these jurors differently from all other jurors? The first reason which was adduced in Committee by the Under-Secretary was that the paying agency was different. That is not very convincing. He then said that coroners' jurors are chosen by the coroner. But that does not diminish the inconvenience which they suffer. It is true that it is unlikely that a coroner's jury will sit for anything like the same sort of time that a jury at a Crown Court would be required to sit, but this provision would suggest that the coroner's jury should be treated as poor relations. That is unjust. They are sometimes derided unjustly.
My own belief is that they often have a sturdy independence. Only recently, I was involved in a case in which, notwithstanding the influence and persuasion of the coroner, a jury decided to return a rider which was not to his liking. I believe that they have a purpose and that it is unfortunate that they should be treated in this casual way as second-class juries. That they are not.
Of course, one other matter affects coroners' juries, which was mentioned to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) before and during the Committee stage, and which is within my own experience. It is that a coroner doles out money from his desk to members of the jury—

Mr. Edward Lyons: Mr. Edward Lyons indicated dissent.

Mr. Davis: I am sorry if I mistook him, but I have seen this done. It is unbelievable that, in this day and age, after the jury have sat, they should be compensated in this way.
But the burden of my argument is that there is no reason in the world why a coroner's jury should not be treated in exactly the same way as any other jury under the terms of the Clause.

Mr. Carlisle: I am afraid that the only message which I can give is the one which was given in Committee. We are still waiting for Brodrick. We hope that the House will not have to wait with anticipation too long but, before the Brodrick Committee reports, we do not feel that it would be right to make any alterations in the law regarding jurors.

Sir Elwyn Jones: What is happening to Brodrick? They have been sitting for five years. An elephant does not take so long. What is going on in the Brodrick Committee? Can the Under-Secretary tell us?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that members of the Committee will have heard the views of the previous Attorney-General about that Committee. All I can say is that, just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Administration used to say that they hoped that, shortly, they would hear from Brodrick, we believe, in all seriousness, that their mammoth task is drawing to an end. We hope that there will shortly be a report from the Brodrick Committee. But until that

report is available, it would be wrong to legislate in respect of coroners' juries.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) say that, because we were not legislating for them, coroners' juries were second-class citizens. The only distinction is that they will continue to be paid by the Home Office, whereas other jurors will be paid by the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to suggest that the Home Secretary was necessarily a second-class citizen, as compared with the Lord Chancellor.
Although they are paid by a different paying agency, coroners' jurors are, in fact, paid the same allowances as other jurors, so they will lose nothing in the time that we have to wait.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It occurs to me that perhaps the members of the Committee have lost the address of the Home Office. Could it be supplied to them?

Mr. Carlisle: The House may be assured that the secretariat of the Brodrick Committee works in the Home Office. I assure the House that the urgent anticipation expressed on the benches opposite will be conveyed to members of that Committee. I would ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 40

ABOLITION OF SPECIAL JURIES AND UPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 28, line 35, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
(2) No judgment after verdict upon any indictment, or after verdict in any other trial by jury in any court, shall be stayed or reversed by reason—

(a) that the provision of this Act about the summoning or impanelling of jurors, or the selection of jurors by ballot, have not been complied with, or
(b) that a juror was not included in the relevant jurors' book or jury list, or
(c) that any juror was misnamed or misdescribed, or
(d) that any juror was unfit to serve or unsuitable in any way.
(3) Subsection (2)(a) above shall not apply to any irregularity if objection is taken at, or


as soon as practicable after, the time it occurs, and the irregularity is not corrected.
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall apply to any objection to a verdict on the ground of personation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be convenient to the House to take, with this Amendment, Government Amendment No. 65.

Mr. Carlisle: That would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Amendment No. 31 is to a large degree drafting. It is to meet a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and to clarify the law. This is a useful drafting Amendment. We have restated the law as it now stands rather than legislated by reference to the 1826 Act, much of which is obsolete. The Amendment seeks to bring parts of that Act up-to-date. Amendment No. 65 merely repeals the 1826 Act.

Mr. Edward Lyons: There is one point on which I seek enlightenment. In Clause 40(2)(h) we are told that the right to appeal is withdrawn after a verdict when any juror is
unfit to serve or unsuitable m any way".
I appreciate that those words were in the Bill at the time of the Committee stage, but nobody then asked what was meant by the phrase "unsuitable in any way". I am a little anxious about this matter because I am reminded of those cases where jurors, as has come to light later, have known the accused and have known things to his detriment.
The case of Thomas involved a case in Wales which was conducted in English and two jurors were said afterwards to speak only Welsh and not to have understood the proceedings. The Court of Appeal on that occasion refused to admit the evidence on appeal. One feels that it would not have refused to admit such evidence if most of the jurors had not been able to understand the proceedings which, to them, were conducted in a foreign language. There are cases on record where an appeal has been allowed because it has transpired subsequently that a jury was so constituted that it would have been unable, or unlikely to have been able, to do justice to the defendant. Such was the case of Hancocks.
I should hate to think that by this Clause, which contracts significantly the right of appeal in the classes of case to which it applies, the word "unsuitable" could be extended to include matters under the general heading of the results of embracery. Embracery is an ancient crime, and some four years ago in a case called Eldridge, at Leeds Assizes, a prosecution took place for just such a crime. Since few people are likely to know what the term embracery means, it involves an attempt by bribe or any corrupt means to influence or instruct jurors.
Supposing, for example, that either before or during a trial somebody corrupts a juror and such a matter is not known until after the trial comes to a conclusion, why should there not be a ground of appeal in respect of that misconduct? I appreciate that the person guilty of the corruption, the embracer, can be prosecuted, but what about the person who may have been convicted? Does the word "unsuitable" include misconduct by a juror, or does it simply mean that the man just does not understand English, or is deaf or blind? If it only means that, one can take a more cheerful view, but "unsuitable" is not a legal word at all but a layman's word and can mean almost anything. Some court in the future might construe it in an unfortunately wide way.
Why should the right of appeal be withdrawn from a man convicted if subsequently it turns out, for example, that nearly all the jurors were deaf, or could not speak English, or suffered from some combination of such factors? I think that this otherwise sensible Clause may be marred by the use of the words "unsuitable in any way." Perhaps we can be given a little enlightenment.

Mr. Carlisle: I am afraid that I cannot help the lion. Gentleman very much and that in the end I should probably have to undertake to write to him if there is anything in what he says. I should have thought that a question of bias in the jury, for instance, went far wider than the word "unsuitable", and would be a ground on which the Court of Appeal could always intervene.
The word "unsuitable" must be taken in its normal meaning, and when following the words "unfit to serve" must mean that the juror was unsuitable by


some defect which was not then apparent. If the unsuitability went as far as bias against an accused, that would be something at which the Court of Appeal would look. I have no note which takes the matter further, but I will look at the point again.

Sir Elwyn Jones: We seem to have missed this point in the Committee. I do not like the word "unsuitable" at all. If there were any reason to think that its use might involve a corrupt juror being described as unsuitable and an appeal being rejected out of hand it would be a most deplorable situation.
I suppose that it is a bit late to look at this question now, when we are about to move to Third Reading. We are in the difficulty that whereas the rest of the Clause seems quite sensible we have this single unhappy word. I do not know whether at this point of time there is anything we can do about it. I reproach myself a little for not having drawn attention to it in Committee.
The word "unsuitable" covers a multitude of possibilities: it can be as broad as one likes or as narrow as one likes. While instructions are being taken under the Gallery, perhaps I can elaborate the matter a little further in the hope of getting more assurance.
Is the unsuitability in respect of educational capacity or conduct in the conduct of a trial, or what does "unsuitable" mean? I know of no precedent for the use of such a word in any other legislation. There might be a belated discovery that a juror was unfit to serve because during the luncheeon adjournment he had taken an excess of refreshment, but as we now in any case have a rule for majority verdicts I suppose that there is a little place for latitude in regard to an individual juror.
The difficulty about the use of the word "unsuitable" lies not only in the anxiety one feels about the word itself, but in the fact that as the Clause stands one can suppose that more than one juror was in the condition I have described—there might be several jurors like that—and it is not clear whether a juror "unsuitable" so called would provide an opportunity for an appeal. I hope that I have taken sufficient time during my observations on this matter to enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman either

to devise a formula to get rid of "unsuitable" at this stage or to give some assurance as to what it is thought to mean.

9.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: One of the great advantages of debating with a very old Parliamentarian—if the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) will forgive me—is that opportunity is sometimes able to be taken to form constructions and to consult about a matter which was clearly very rightly raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), and which all of us have overlooked until now.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, East and with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The words "… or unsuitable in any way" have a very respectable origin, going back, perhaps, to the 1826 Act and included in Morris. Nevertheless, I share with the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman their distaste or surprise to see them there.
If acceptable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will propose that the Amendment should be amended so that subsection "(d)" should read
that any juror was unfit to serve
and that we should omit from the Amendment the words
…or unsuitable in any way.
The matter can be looked at again, perhaps, in other legislation. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that would meet the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, if you agree, I invite you, by a further Amendment, to have the words
… or unsuitable in any way
omitted from the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would best suit the House if we were to take the Amendment as it now stands. I would certainly accept a manuscript Amendment from the Attorney-General almost immediately, which would amend this Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I am not sure now that that is acceptable to the hon. Gentleman and to the right


hon. and learned Gentleman, as I see that they have been in consultation. Perhaps they do not agree with the proposal.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It is certainly an improvement. My hon. Friend is still not very happy about the words
that any juror was unfit to serve …
What troubles him is that a corrupted juror might by virtue of that fact be deemed to be a juror who was unfit to serve. I should think that those words bore a construction far more limited than that and that "unfit to serve" meant unfit by reason of some mental or physical disability. I should have thought that the words would clearly imply that. I hope that that observation may prove satisfactory. But if further guidance from those who advise us on these matters is required upon that matter also, I am very happy to have a little time for dealing with the elaboration of this difficulty. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is happy about it, it does not trouble me as much as the words
… or unsuitable in any way.
It is suggested by my hon. and learned Friend that the word "incapable" might be substituted, but I am not sure that that would meet the requirements of the case.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that there is a reference in Clause 38 to "unfit for service". That means unfit for service by reason of drink or drugs. So, quite clearly, there are reasons for unfitness for service. The words which I find so difficult and which I have noted to draw the attention of the House are, "is unsuitable in any way".

Sir Elwyn Jones: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) looking reasonably content. What is proposed by the Attorney-General eliminates the major difficulty, and I would expect the court to construe "unfit to serve" in the way I have submitted to the House. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for acceeding to this, and I compliment my hon. Friend on his quickness in spotting what had hitherto passed undetected through another place and through Committee.

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: In sub-paragraph (d) after "serve", leave out "or unsuitable in any way".—[The Attorney-General.]

Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41

MERGER OF PALATINE COURTS WITH HIGH COURT

Miss Mary Holt: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 29, line 33, at end insert:
'but such directions shall be given by the Lord Chancellor under section 2 as will ensure that there shall be sittings of a court of the Chancery Division of the High Court within Lancashire presided over by the holder for the time being of the office of Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster at such places and times as the Lord Chancellor shall direct.'

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we take also Amendments No. 41, in Schedule 2, page 43, line 18, leave out 'persons' and insert 'person'.

No. 42, in line 19, at end insert:
'shall become a Judge of the High Court and the persons then holding office as'.

No. 43, in page 44, line 11, leave out 'Circuit Judge' and insert:
'Judge of the High Court'.

No. 44, in line 13 after first 'the', insert 'other'.

No. 45, in line 21, leave out from `a' to end of line 23.

No. 48, in page 45, line 20, after 'Judge', insert:
'or Judge of the High Court'.

No. 49, in page 45, line 22, after 'Judge', insert:
'or Judge of the High Court'.

Miss Holt: I am happy to have the opportunity of moving the Amendment because there has been so much anxiety in Lancashire about the merger of the Lancashire Chancery Court with the High Court. Since the Second Reading there have been several Amendments and additions to the Bill but none of those which have been proposed in relation to the Lancashire Chancery Court has been accepted. Nevertheless, a number of


assurances have been given by the Lord Chancellor outside the House, and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Home Department, when the Bill was in Committee.
Speaking at Blackpool on 19th February, 1971, the Lord Chancellor said of the Vice-Chancellor of the Lancashire Chancery Court:
I am particularly anxious to allay the fears expressed both on behalf of litigants and on behalf of the profession and indeed on their behalf in Parliament that his functions are going to be taken away or that part of his work will he transferred out of the county when the Bill becomes law. The very reverse is the case.… So far as concerns his work the intention is that he should be available to try even more cases locally than heretofore. It is possible some work will be added unto him. It is certain that none will be taken away.
My hon. Friend said in Committee:
On each circuit there should be available facilities for trying Chancery cases in the main centres of those circuits. Either a High Court Chancery judge would go there to try them, or, which would be more usual, a circuit judge with special experience of this kind of work would try them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th February, 1971; c. 406.]
These assurances have to some extent lessened the worst fears of the legal profession in Lancashire, but they are not entirely satisfied. It has to be remembered that the Lancashire Chancery Court fulfilled a particularly valuable purpose in Lancashire. It served an area of about 11 million people and provided them with a court of equity offering the same quality of justice as the Chancery Division of the High Court, with its own judge exercising all the powers of a High Court judge; its own staff; its own district registries; and its own first-class local Chancery Bar.
It was in this latter respect that the court was so different from any other. Quite apart from the volume of work, its position, with its local Chancery Bar, made it far more important as a court than the only other Chancery court outside London—Durham. Under the Bill the court will be merged with the High Court. The Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster will remain, but the judge of the court will become a circuit judge. Under Clause 2 the Lord Chancellor directs where the High Court is to sit.
As the Bill stands, the people of Lan-

cashire will have to be satisfied with assurances given by the present Lord Chancellor outside Parliament and by my hon. Friend in Committee that such a direction will be given as will ensure that there will be supplied within Lancashire, in future, a court or courts which will dispense justice equivalent to that hitherto given by the Lancashire Chancery Court—which, within Lancashire, was the same as the Chancery Division of the High Court in London.
Assurances are never as satisfactory as statutory provisions, because they do not bind future holders of office. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said that he had been in the House long enough not to be very optimistic. Since I came to the House I, too, have learned to be less optimistic in some respects than I was when I first arrived. If my right hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to accept these Amendments, I ask him to repeat the assurances already given, accompanied by some practical details.
It is a contradiction in terms to have a court exercising all the powers of the High Court in Chancery matters but with a judge whose position and standing is that of an ordinary circuit judge, except that for purposes of precedence he ranks above other circuit judges. It is not just a question of pay; it is a question of power.
If the future court presided over the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster is to have equivalent jurisdiction to the Lancashire Palatine Court, with only an extension of its territorial limits, it requires a High Court judge to preside over it. The Vice-Chancellor has never in the past been the equivalent of a county court judge. He has been in everything, except the terms of his employment and pay, a High Court judge. Because, under the Bill, he ceases to be employed by the Duchy of Lancaster and becomes employed by the Government his status should not be downgraded. If it is, the people of Lancashire will have to accept something less than they have had previously.
There are two practical difficulties in connection with the way in which this new court—a branch of the High Court, exercising Chancery jurisdiction in Lancashire—is to work. Is the court to continue sitting in Manchester, Liverpool


and Preston, as previously, or will other directions be given? Will special rules be made for this court? At the moment, the Palatine Court has its own rules which, while similar to the rules of the Supreme Court in respect of Chancery work, are not quite the same, since the Registrar, who is a member of the Bar, sits in chambers as deputy of the Vice-Chancellor in cases which, in the Chancery Division of the High Court, are normally taken by a judge in chambers. This is necessary, because all the work is not dealt with in one place, as is the case in London.
No court exercising Chancery jurisdiction in the provinces can operate without machinery for dealing with interlocutory applications and preparing the work for the judge. The district registries of the High Court of Lancashire are not equipped to do this work. The district registrars of Manchester and Liverpool lack knowledge and experience, and on the few occasions when I have had to appear in the district registry in Manchester the abysmal lack of knowledge of the district registrar of Chancery law and procedure has made him utterly dependent, for guidance, upon the advocate appearing before him.
This problem does not appear to have exercised, or, perhaps, even to have occurred to, the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend or the Lord Chancellor's Department.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Clegg.]

COURTS BILL [Lords]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Miss Holt: I have directed the attention of the House to the requirements which will come about when a new court begins to sit in Lancashire. I hope that

expert advice will be taken, preferably from some of those who have experience in the Lancashire Chancery court, of operating the Chancery court in the provinces. It is futile for people who have no such experience to prejudge everything in terms of the practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court. If there is a wind of change needed anywhere, it ought to blow in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Not only do people in the provinces want justice dispensed on their doorsteps; if there are to be reforms, they want them to be improvements.
I am particularly concerned about the staff of this excellent court. May we be assured that those who work in Preston and in the registries in Manchester and Liverpool will receive or be offered positions equivalent to those which they now hold? I need scarcely remind the House that the Lord Chancellor said that none of the work was to be taken away from the court. The staff, therefore, ought to be required to operate the new court.
If those who were employed in the Land Commission, all of whom applied for their jobs knowing that if a Conservative Government took office the Commission would be abolished, are to be employed again elsewhere, surely positions ought to be found for the staff of this excellent court, all of whom are experienced people. They ought to take the place of those who retire in due course in the High Court registries as well as being employed to operate the new court.

Mr. Carlisle: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Miss Holt) that the clear intention is that the staff at present being used in the court should continue to be used in the court service. Indeed, we welcome their experience and the valuable knowledge which they have of these matters. I assure her, also, that the intention is that the service provided in the trial of Chancery cases in Lancashire should continue to be provided to, I am sure, the same standard as has been maintained high hitherto.
These Amendments are much the same as those on which we had a full and useful discussion in Committee, and I do not think I can add much to what I then said. I greatly sympathise with the feelings which, I know, lie behind the


Amendments which my hon. Friend has put down, and I entirely recognise her long and respected experience of this court. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is right in his view that Amendments in this form could not be accepted. They seek, in effect, to revive and continue the Palatine Court by imposing a special and unique statutory obligation on the Lord Chancellor to make directions under which the Palatine Court would, in effect, be perpetuated as a separate wing of the High Court, and to create the Vice-Chancellor as a full High Court judge.
I am afraid that this is unacceptable. The requirement that the Lord Chancellor should make directions as to the sittings of the Chancery Division in Lancashire is much the same as that proposed in the Amendment which we debated before. The effect of the Bill as it stands is that the Lord Chancellor already has that power. But—this, I know, is far more important to my hon. Friend—he proposes to exercise it to see that Chancery business is conducted in Lancashire. We must leave to him and the courts organisation the flexibility to decide what are the suitable cities in which that court should sit. It would be undesirable to have a special statutory obligation in regard to Lancashire, since in due course the Lord Chancellor intends to provide for the business of the Chancery Division to be carried out in other major provincial cities. If we made this special provision for Lancashire at this stage we should be bound to make special statutory arrangements for any other city.
The Amendment would, in effect, make the Vice-Chancellor into a High Court judge. As I have pointed out on other occasions, such an arrangement would be entirely contrary to the nature of a High Court judge as it has always been understood, and to the Beeching Commission's express recommendation that High Court judges should continue to travel around the country and do a variety of work. As the Vice-Chancellor has always had great expertise in Chancery matters, he does not do a variety of work other than Chancery work, and it is intended, even by the Amendment, that he should be in Lancashire rather than in the country as a whole.
One of the clearest conclusions to be drawn from the Beeching Report is that many of the unsatisfactory features of our present system have been due to the existence of independently-administered courts created by Statute to serve the needs of particular parts of the country, which were unable to be adapted to take account of changes and developments which occurred afterwards.
I assure my hon. Friend that the guarantee she asks for I am only too willing to repeat, that every word said on the matter in Committee, every word said by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in, I think, Blackpool, stands. It is quite clear that the commitments I then gave will relate to the way in which Chancery business will continue to be carried out in Lancashire. As I said in Committee, I believe that the effect of what we are doing will not be to reduce the amount of work carried out in Lancashire, but is likely to enhance it, because the present jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor will continue. He will still have the power to take all cases falling within the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Division not involving specialised subjects such as patents. In other words, this same jurisdiction will continue, and there will be the opportunity for people to apply to have their cases tried in Lancashire, or for the Vice-Chancellor to assist in the dispatch of Chancery business across the Pennines in other major cities.
I also give my hon. Friend the undertaking that it is the intention that when the unfortunate day arrives when the present Vice-Chancellor gives up office, a circuit judge should be appointed Vice-Chancellor in his place so that Chancery business can continue to be dispatched in Lancashire.
The Lord Chancellor intends to implement the Beeching recommendations for Chancery business in other centres, but this involves training registry staff and recruiting appropriately-experienced circuit judges. In Lancashire that machinery, both for the staff and for the Vice-Chancellor, is already at hand. The Lord Chancellor intends to use it from the start, and to go on using it as long as any demand continues, which he believes is likely to be indefinitely.
In view of the hour, I have largely summarised what I said in Committee,


which was a carefully-considered statement, deliberately given so that it could, I hope, meet the fears of those who practise in the North-West about the intentions with regard to the Lancashire Palatine Court. I hope that my saying that that undertaking still stands will satisfy my hon. Friend's understandable desire to raise this point again on Report.

Miss Holt: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42

LOCAL COURT FOR CITY OF LONDON

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 30, line 10, leave out '4 of the County Courts Act 1959' and insert '20(1) of this Act'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Clause 46

PATENT APPEALS

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 33, line 5, at end insert:
(4) The Patents Appeal Tribunal shall, with regard to the right of audience, observe the same practice as before the first day of November nineteen hundred and thirty-two, was observed in the hearing of appeals by the law officer and may also extend the right of audience to such other persons or classes of person as the Tribunal may from time to time prescribe by rules.
This Amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), who has asked me to apologise to the Attorney-General for his inability to be here to move it himself. It is a probing Amendment to ascertain the intentions of the Government with regard to the right of audience before this tribunal, and no doubt the reply will be delivered to him in due course.

The Attorney-General: No one knows what the practice was before 1932, so it is not possible to say. The Amendment would put the clock back to the unsatisfactory state of things before the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, which gave rules, and those rules give rights to barristers, solicitors and patent agents to appear before the Patents

Appeal Tribunal. It is sensible to retain that provision. The Banks Committee recommended last July the establishment of a Patents Court of the High Court to hear all patent actions, and this is under urgent consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 47

COSTS AWARDED BY CROWN COURT OUT OF CENTRAL FUNDS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 33, line 33 leave out "and giving evidence".
It might be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 38, 52, 53 and 67.
The purpose is to remove the doubts which exist as to whether a witness who attends at the request of the court but is not subsequently required to give evidence to the court shall qualify for the payment of witness's fees and expenses. This is achieved by the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 33, line 39 leave out "and giving evidence"—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 33, line 40, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) References in subsections (3) and (4) above to a witness include any person who is a witness to character only and in respect of whom the court certifies that the interests of justice required his attendance but no sums shall be payable in pursuance of an order made under this Becton to or in respect of any witness who is a witness to character only and in respect of whom no such certificate is given.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has an Amendment down to deal with this matter as well. In Committee, various matters were raised about the payment of expenses to those witnesses who were giving character evidence only. I undertook to look at the matter again. We have done so and believe that the words in the Bill are unsatisfactory. The position now will be that the witness of character whose attendance the court certifies as necessary in the interests of justice may have his costs paid. Our Amendment meets the


purpose of an Amendment put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, who has been good enough to intimate to me that in view of this he does not propose to pursue the one which stands in his name on the Order Paper.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this Amendment, which is the result of a probing by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). It meets a point which had been mooted and covers the position of the character witness whose presence as a witness was necessary in the interests of justice and who should, accordingly, be covered in respect of costs.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50

CROWN COURT RULES RELATING TO COSTS

10.15 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 35, line 14, at end insert:
'and in particular as to the circumstances in which the Crown Court may exercise its discretion so as to refuse costs to a successful defendant or appellant'.
In Committee, the Opposition moved an Amendment to Clause 14 which would have enabled Crown Court rules to be made to provide for the practice to be followed under those provisions of the Bill which deal with costs and in particular to provide for an accused person who is acquitted, or whose conviction is set aside on appeal, in the ordinary way to be entitled to his costs, unless the interests of justice otherwise required.
As the Under-Secretary will recall, there was an interesting and valuable debate on that Amendment when the hon. Gentleman said:
Out of the debate has come a feeling, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and by hon. Members opposite, that in practice people are not entirely happy about the way in which courts are exercising their powers to award costs to people who are acquitted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Commitee A, 11 th February, 1971; c. 195.]

That fairly summarised the view strongly expressed in the course of that debate.
The Under-Secretary went on to say that the matter was governed by a direction given in 1959 by the Lord Chief Justice and he said that he had been good enough to have informal consultations with the Lord Chief Justice who had intimated that he would be prepared to see whether previous statements made on the subject and the guidance which he had given required to be extended or clarified in order to make clear the uninhibited nature of the existing discretion. He went on to draw attention to some of the confusion which might exist by virtue of a footnote to Stone's Justices' Manual in the 1970 edition which might well be followed by benches of magistrates in particular.
What has emerged from what the hon. Gentleman told the Committee we do not yet know and he may well be able to give us further help on the matter. We now have Crown Court rules provided under the Bill. This is an extremely valuable departure, providing rules for the criminal courts as we have always had them in the civil courts. Under the Bill, directions are to be made by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice. Thirdly, we have intimations or statements which may be made by the Lord Chief Justice on matters such as those I have mentioned, and all of these are matters which in future will govern the way in which the courts act on matters which may well be of considerable importance, such as the discretion in the exercise of their power to award costs to a successful defendant or appellant.
It seems that it would be a more satisfactory way of dealing with these matters if wherever possible they could be dealt with by means of Crown Court rules, that is, even if the Lord Chief Justice were to make a direction, not in the sense in which it is used in the Bill, but were to give an intimation as to the way in which, in his view, the court should exercise its discretion, still, if possible, that should in due course be included in the Crown Court rules in the appropriate form so that the information is readily available and so that a court is required to follow it and if it fails to do so that might be a matter which could be dealt with by way of appeal.
In our view the Amendment fits into the wording of Clause 50 as it now stands which provides that:
Crown Court rules may authorise the court to award costs and may regulate any matters relating to costs of proceedings in the Crown Court, and in particular may make provision as to—
(a) any discretion to award costs.
What the Amendment seeks to do at that point is to add:
and in particular as to the circumstances in which the Crown Court may exercise its discretion so as to refuse costs to the successful defendant or appellant.
It is put in that way deliberately so that it may be seen that if such rules are made they should set out the circumstances in which it would be right for the court to exercise its discretion to refuse costs rather than the other way round.
It is not essential that any such Crown Court rules should be made. This is merely intended to enlarge the ability to make Crown Court rules so that there is no doubt that they can be made on this important subject. We feel that by adopting this Amendment we have taken a compromise position which takes account of what the Under-Secretary said in Committee but which none the less enables effect to be given in Crown Court rules to any directions which may in future be made or which may be made as a result of the Lord Chief Justice taking another look at the existing direction as promised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee.

Mr. Carlisle: I appreciate that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has returned to this question of the award of costs to a defendant who has been acquitted. I am bound to point out that he is misconceived in thinking he can do it in this way since Clause 50 deals with party and party costs and not with costs out of public funds. Subsection (3) says:
Nothing in this section shall auhorise the making of rules about the payment of costs out of central funds, whether under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 or otherwise, but rules under this section may make any such provision as is contained in section 48 above.
We had a long discussion on this in Committee. I still feel, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was

good enough to accept, that there is force in the argument and much to be said for leaving these matters to the discretion of the court.
I gave an undertaking that, in view of what had been said in Committee, we would consult the then Lord Chief Justice about whether the guidance he had previously given was adequate in achieving the intended object. We are now in correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice about the possible wording of a new statement. No difficulty has arisen in substance. The Lord Chief Justice expressed himself only too willing to consider the matter. We are discussing the appropriate wording of such a statement.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asks whether the statement, once made, should be incorporated in the rules. I do not know whether that would gain anything. It would be a practice direction given by the criminal division of the court of appeal. We all accepted in Committee that the real complaint was not that the discretion was left to the court nor that the ex-Lord Chief Justice had given guidance as to how that discretion should be used, but because we felt that it was being too sparingly used by the courts. I hope that the point will be met by the new lines of guidance given by the new Lord Chief Justice.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that it is best to leave it there and to see what comes out of the consultations with the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: With leave, I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman of the case referred to earlier today and in Committee of the King v. Powell. A practice had been stated to be undesirable and yet, because there was no statutory provision to deal with the matter, the undesirability was not a ground for appeal. I suggest that in cases of that sort there might be grounds for considering whether a rule should be made. However, having put the thought into the hon. Gentleman's mind—and perhaps he will discuss it with the Lord Chief Justice—I am content to leave it there.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON MERGER OR ABOLITION OF CERTAIN COURTS

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 56, line 7, at end insert:
(4) On the relevant date there shall be vested in the Accountant General of the Supreme Court any outstanding liabilities of the Lancaster Palatine Court in respect of sums which at one time formed part of the funds in court in the Lancaster Palatine Court but which ceased to do so at some time prior to that date; and any amounts required to meet any such liabilities shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Accountant General.
This minor addition to paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 is necessitated by the fact that the transfer of the Lancaster Palatine Court funds to the Supreme Court also involves the transfer of a contingent liability to meet claims on dormant funds. It is not possible under the Schedule as drafted to transfer the contingent liability. The Amendment is designed to do so as simply and directly as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 52, page 59, line 8, after '1', insert '(1)'.

No. 53, page 59, line 10, at end insert:

(2) In each of subsections (3) and (4) of that section the words 'and giving evidence' shall be omitted.

(3) After subsection (4) of that section insert the following subsection—
'(4A) References in subsections (3) and (4) above to a witness include any person who is a witness to character only and in respect of whom the court certifies that the interests of justice required his attendance, but no sums shall be payable in pursuance of an order made under this section to or in respect of any witness who is a witness to character only and in respect of whom no such certificate is given.—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 8

AMENDMENTS OF OTHER ACTS

Amendments made: No. 54, page 66, line 44, leave out 'appointed for' and insert 'assigned to'.

No. 55, page 66, line 46, leave out from 'judge' to end of line 47 and insert 'so assigned'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 70, line 6, to leave out from '1915' to 'references' in line 7.
This is a drafting Amendment removing the reference to the rule committee in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 57 in page 73, line 21, after 'Schedule, 1 insert:
'to the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950'.

No. 58, page 74, line 24, at end insert:
(3) In section 201 of the said Act, in the definition beginning 'judge' for the words 'appointed for a district under this Act' substitute 'assigned to a district under section 20(1) of the Courts Act 1971'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 74, line 37, at end insert:

Obscene Publications Act 1959

37. In section 3(5) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (time of coming into force of forfeiture order) for the words from 'fourteen days' to 'order is made' substitute 'the period within which notice of appeal to the Crown Court may be given against the order'.

The Amendment is consequential upon the repeal by the Bill of Section 84 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which provides that notice of appeal to quarter sessions must be given within 14 days of the decision of the magistrates. Under the Bill, the time limit for appeals will be a matter for the Crown Court Rules.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 74, line 45, at end insert:

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960

38. In section 9(2) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (time of coming into force of order revoking a licence) for the words from 'on such date' to the words 'case stated or otherwise' substitute 'on such date as the court may specify in the order, being a date not earlier than the expiration of any period within which notice of appeal (whether by case stated or otherwise) may be given against the conviction'—[Mr. Carlisle.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 75, line 34 after first 'chairman', insert 'a vice-chairman'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 61 and 62.

The Attorney-General: There was a Committee of Magistrates for the Inner London Area. The chairman was the chairman of quarter sessions. Quarter Sessions disappear by virtue of the Bill. The chairman will become the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Committee consists of stipendiary magistrates, lay justices and members of the juvenile panel. The chairman is anxious to appoint a vice-chairman from among those stipendiaries already on the Committee, and a deputy chairman from among the lay members.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 61, in page 75, line 35 after 'and', insert '(a)'.

No. 62, in page 75, line 36 leave out 'and' and insert:
(b) a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate chosen from among the members of the committee by the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate shall be vice-chairman, and
(c).—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 76, line 29 at end insert:

Criminal Appeal Act 1966

In section 1(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 the words 'of the Queen's Bench Division' and paragraph (a) shall be omitted.

With it, it is probably convenient to discuss Amendment No. 75, which is consequential.

The purpose of the Amendment is to enable any judge of the High Court to sit in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. At the moment, this is limited to judges of the Queen's Bench Division, who can sit with the Lords Justices of Appeal. However, among the judges of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division there are many who have had great experience of criminal matters, both in practice and, before becoming judges, when sitting as recorders or chairmen of quarter sessions.

The proposal is that the Lord Chief Justice should be able to call upon these

judges to join in sitting in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. When out on circuit at present, these judges often try criminal cases, as well as the civil list, and they are well qualified to sit as puisne judges in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 10

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 83, line 13, leave out from 'been' to end of line 15 and insert:
'assigned to that district (in his capacity as a Circuit judge) under section 20(1) of this Act'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 87, column 3, leave out line 25 to 32 and insert 'Section 21'.

No. 66, in page 88, column 3, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert:
In section 1 the words from the last 'and' in proviso (a) to 'the indictments Act 1915'.

No. 67, in page 93, line 4, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 5, in subsections (3) and (4), the words "and giving evidence"'.

No. 68, in page 96, line 15, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 3 the definition beginning "The expression 'quarter sessions'"'.

No. 69, in line 27, at end insert:


10 &amp; 11 Vict. C. 89.
The Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
In section 3 the definition beginning "The expression 'quarter sessions'".

—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 101, line 36, column 3, at end insert:
In Schedule 3. in Part I, the words 'Official Referee to the Supreme Court'.
Amendment No. 71 is consequential to it. They are both consequential to the provisions of Clause 25, which provides that no further official referees are appointed and that their functions are to be exercised by circuit judges.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 71, in page 101, line 38, column 3, at end insert:
'and in column 2 of that Schedule paragraphs 2(ii) and 4(iii)'.

No. 72, in page 105, line 3, column 3, after '1', insert:
'the entry beginning "Judge appointed for a district" and'

No. 73, in page 108, line 2, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert:
'In section 2(2), the proviso. Sections 3 to 10'.

No. 74, in page 109, line 3, column 3, leave out 'Section 23' and insert:

'Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23'.

No. 75, in page 110, line 23, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 1(3) the words "of the Queen's Bench Division" and paragraph (a)'.—(The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 110, line 40, column 3, leave out 'and paragraph (b)'.
This Amendment is also to remove from the Schedule the repeal of paragraph (b) of the Superannuation Act, 1967.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 112, line 16, column 3, at end insert—Section 45(1).—[The Attorney-General.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: One of the primary objects of the Bill is to speed up the process of criminal trials, and I believe that it will help to achieve that purpose.
It must be said straight away that long delays in bringing criminal cases to trial have been a disgrace to the administration of justice in this country. It is an injustice to the defendants who have to wait for perhaps several months until charges against them have been brought and disposed of and to the prosecution because witnesses who were available and well able to remember the facts of an individual case may not be able to remember so clearly when the case finally comes to be tried many months later. Consequently the process of the administration of justice has been weakened by these delays.
We should not forget that only 28 to 35 per cent. of all criminal cases are cleared up. The Bill applies to courts which deal with something less than 5 per cent. of all cases brought to court, the rest being dealt with by magistrates' courts. Consequently, we are talking about crimes dealt with in these courts amounting to between 1 and 2 per cent. of the total. Therefore, this is a modest measure of reform in some ways, but perhaps a significant and welcome one in others.
I am particularly glad to see the extent of the repeals. There are 25 pages out of 112 which deal with repeals of other legislation. That must be a good thing.
I should like to refer briefly to Clause 12 which deals with the right of audience of solicitors. That now applies to what appears to be the Lord Chancellor's formula, based on granting him absolute discretion to decide what right of audience solicitors may in future have before Crown courts.
I submit that a case has been made for the Lord Chancellor to exercise his powers under this Clause where there is

an existing right of audience of solicitors in certain courts. Similarly, a case has been made where there is a temporary shortage of counsel. But I suggest that no case has been made for a permanent restriction on the present exclusive right of audience possessed by the Bar.
I suggest that when the time comes to apply Clause 12, particularly subsection (3), it will be necessary to bear in mind that any permanent change in this respect which deprives the Bar of its present exclusive right will upset the balance which exists between the two branches of the legal profession. That balance exists because barristers have an exclusive right of audience in the superior courts and solicitors have an exclusive right of direct access to the public. Justice and the public interest are best served in this way. But, judging by what was said in another place, I fear that the Lord Chancellor has already been brainwashed into accepting a permanent restriction and, therefore, a weakening of the Bar in this respect.
It would appear that the Lord Chief Justice, among others, persuaded the Lord Chancellor that Crown courts should be open to solicitors for the purposes of committals for sentence and appeals from magistrates' courts, and that from the phraseology then used by the Lord Chief Justice he at least thought that solicitors might even be allowed audience progressively, and ultimately even in the highest courts.
To speak thus is wholly to misunderstand the nature of the difference between barristers and solicitors, which is one of function and not of status. These two classes of case which it has been suggested should now provide an increased sphere of audience for solicitors in Crown courts cover about 25 per cent. of all cases now dealt with by the criminal Bar. That, at any rate, is the estimate of the Bar Council.
That is a very serious matter for young barristers beginning their careers. It may be all very well for certain judges, especially those nearing the end of their professional time, and for some senior members of the Bar, Queen's Counsel, to say that this will not be a threat to the Bar, but young barristers will, with the


loss of this class of work, be deprived of this start in their professional lives.
My object in speaking in this way is to express the hope that the Lord Chancellor listens to the wiser words, if I may say so, of his predecessor on this point, and pauses in applying Clause 12 before he capitulates to the solicitors' lobby.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: A good deal of water has flowed down the Thames since Lord Gardiner first conceived of the idea of appointing Lord Beeching to head the great Commission whose Report is the foundation of this Bill. The Measure gives effect to recommendations which achieve a revolution in the structure of our courts and in the administration of justice in the High Court.
It is a matter for congratulation that the immense work that must have gone on—both, if I may say so, under the previous, and under the present Administration—should have culminated so quickly in the Bill receiving its Third Reading. I hope it may be proper for me to congratulate those who have been concerned in the Departments of the Lord Chancellor, the Law Officers and the Home Secretary on the enormous amount of work which must have been involved in fulfilling this task in time.
I shall not be tempted to examine the contents of the Bill now, but perhaps I may be permitted to add one further note of congratulation: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will take no umbrage if I do so. I want to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the outstanding work he has put in at every stage of the Bill through this House. It is a most happy thing that these last stages here should come on a day on which the Under-Secretary has taken silk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can only hope that he will very quickly retire to a highly lucrative practice as a result of the decision of the electorate! We sincerely congratulate him, and wish him success in his future.

10.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I wish to join the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) in congratulating my hon. and now learned

Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his tremendous work on this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be run very close indeed if my hon. and learned Friend decides to leave the Government—which will go on for ever—to seek work in other pastures.
To go back to the beginning of the story, I wish also to pay tribute to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and also to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, for their hard work on this legislation in a previous Parliament. If ever there was a Bill which was the result of joint efforts on both sides of the House, working together through two Parliaments, this is it. Its purpose is of the greatest importance: namely, the proper and best administration of justice.
I wish to thank all those right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the hard work in Committee—and I regret that I was unable to be present there all the time—and who made constructive speeches on Second Reading debates both in this Parliament and the previous one. It can be said that there are people who take decisions and people who do the work, and certainly much outstanding work has been done by members of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Law Officers' Department and the Home Office. Without their devotion to the task, we would not have this Bill before us today.
I commend the Bill to the House since I feel it will be a landmark in the arministration of justice.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not propose to detain the House for long but I, too, wish to add my tribute to those which have already been paid to the work of the Under-Secretary of State. As a solicitor, I fear that in the immediate future I shall be denied the opportunity of briefing him as a silk, though I sincerely hope that that opportunity will not be long delayed. I am not, of course, hoping that he personally will lose office.
I feel that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) would have been wiser not to have resurrected the argument about solicitors' rights of audience. The rights of audience which have


been recognised in principle have been arrived at as a result of long discussion. There can be no doubt that if the Lord Chancellor were to take the hon. Member's remarks as a guiding light—and I am sure he will not—it would constitute a breach of the undertaking he gave to another place, which was underlined during the Committee stage.
Members of the solicitors' profession, having seen recognition of the principle of the right of audience, will now wish to see how the Lord Chancellor will implement those principles. The same applies to the matter of eligibility to the Bench. The Law Society and solicitors throughout the country will be watching how the Lord Chancellor implements these principles which have been so hard-fought.
Nobody can doubt the value of the Beeching Report which is now enshrined in this Bill. The vast amount of criminal work undertaken by magistrates' courts is now a proper subject for inquiry. They are the front line of criminal justice, but they are subject to all sorts of inconveniences. There are frequent adjournments, and matrimonial proceedings are dealt with in the atmosphere of a criminal court. There is a host of matters deserving consideration, not least the disquieting information, disclosed in the latest edition of the Criminal Law Review, of many cases in which considerations of bail are not given adequate treatment. I hope that the precedent of the Beeching Report will be followed here.
I also hope that the inordinate delays in criminal trials in London in particular will to a large extent be erased when the Bill is law. This experience is not felt throughout the country, but those who practise in London become increasingly irritated by these delays. But much more important is the effect on the unfortunate accused and on the witnesses, whose memory has to be taxed after so long a period.
I was very grateful for the concessions made by the Under-Secretary to some of my Amendments. I only hope that on other occasions he will follow that very wise precept.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: As a brief intruder into this debate, and a

barrister who has never practised, I welcome this modernisation of a vital part of our national life and join in the congratulations to my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends on the speed with which this reform has been carried through Parliament.
On administration and accommodation, which are partly covered by Clause 28, I should like to say a word on behalf of Cambridge. I strongly support the representations of the Cambridge City Council and local practitioners to the Lord Chancellor and the circuit administrator that there should be a second tier court and not a third tier court at Cambridge.
There are strong reasons for this, which are not merely historical or sentimental. Cambridge is the centre of a large geographical area, increasingly important as such, and there is already substantial criminal business there. Without a second tier court, there will be extra inconvenience and expense to many people, practitioners and others, who would have to travel much further afield. I hope that these arguments will be carefully and sympathetically considered before decisions are made. With this special plea, I am glad to support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I have my doubts about whether all that the hon. Gentleman said was in order, but, without prejudice to the congratulatory undertones to the Under-Secretary, I will now put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3

LIABILITY FOR INJURY DONE BY DOGS TO LIVESTOCK

10.55 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 20, at end add:
(2) If the damages claimed in an action under this section do not exceed £25, a court of summary jurisdiction may, after convicting


a person of an offence in respect of failure to control the dog, order him to pay damages up to such an amount to the owner of the livestock.
The Amendment seeks to remedy the one blemish on a good Bill. Section 1(3) of the Dogs Act, 1906, provided that if the damages claimed do not exceed £5 they may be recovered under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts as a civil debt. Subsection (4) provided that:
Where a dog is proved to have injured cattle or chased sheep, it may be dealt with under section two of the Dogs Act, 1871, as a dangerous dog.
Some 9,000 sheep a year are killed by dogs, and an equal number of poultry. When Lord Goddard's Committee in 1953 examined these provisions of the Dogs Act, it came to the not surprising conclusion that because of inflation £5 was inadequate. But when the Law Commission examined these provisions it cursorily provided for the replacement of Section 1 of the Dogs Act by the provisions that have been adopted in this Bill.
I raised this matter in Committee, pointing out the inconvenience caused in rural areas. In the old days when the value of the sheep or the head of poultry was nearer the limit set by the 1906 Act this provision could be used, but nowadays it would be better to raise the limit to the modern value of the sheep or injured livestock.
The Attorney-General, not surprisingly, as he must look after his profession and is anxious to propagate litigation, suggested that these matters should always be conducted in the county court before the registrar. This may be so in some areas, but in a rural area when a person is charged with having a dog which is out of control and has damaged livestock, it is not unreasonable at the end of the case that the magistrates, apart from making such order in respect of the dog as may be necessary, should award damages up to a reasonable amount to the owner of the livestock. The Attorney-General said that he would consider this point between Committee and Report. I therefore bring up this matter again, having slightly altered the wording of my Amendment to relate it more specifically to a case in a magistrates' court where a person is being charged in respect of damage done by a dog which is out of control. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will

accept the Amendment. If he does not, a great deal of hardship will arise.
The limit of £5 has meant recently that very few cases can be brought under section 1(3) of the Dogs Act, 1906. There is a great demand by those who own sheep and poultry that this limit should be raised to a more reasonable sum, such as £25. It would, therefore, be a great convenience generally and save the time of the county courts and registrars, who are busy people, if my right hon. and learned Friend would accept the Amendment.

11.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) should have interpreted my defence of a position which I thought was a principle of law into one of propagating the interest or advantage of my own profession. He is far more likely to find a member of my profession defending someone before a criminal court or a magistrates' court than before the registrar of a county court.
I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has in mind—to produce, as it were, a short, sharp and effective method of dealing with persons whose dogs, out of control, cause damage to livestock. He is right to say that little recourse has been made in latter years to Section 1 of the Dogs Act. In the years 1965 to 1969 there were only three cases where people have been to the magistrates' court. It may well be that the sum of £5 is so low that it is not worth while going to court. If that is so, then farmers either have not thought it worth while and have let the matter go or, I suppose, may have gone to the registrar of the county court.
The Bill establishes a code of civil liability. It is the whole trend of the law at present that the magistrates' court—many people attach opprobrium to being brought before the magistrates' court, which is a criminal court—should hear only criminal cases or, as a family division, domestic cases, and that all civil liability and all civil claims should go to the appropriate civil court, which is the county court.
The Amendment would give to a court of summary jurisdiction, after conviction of an offence, the power to order the


person to pay damages. It would mean that the person would get a criminal conviction, whereas what he has been guilty of is a civil wrong which should in principle be dealt with by the civil court.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. and learned Friend must recognise that every magistrates' court in rural areas is constantly having cases brought where failure to control a dog has caused damage to livestock. That is happening today. But at the moment they can make some award if it is the right amount. The Amendment would not involve new charges.

The Attorney-General: My information is that between 1965 and 1969 only three awards were made under Section 1(3) of the Dogs Act, 1906. Either people do not think it worth while—and I accept that this is probably because the damages are low—or they are going to another court. But the principle which should be established and which we should be reluctant to depart from is that nowadays magistrates' courts have no experience of civil claims and are not trained for them. The public associate these courts with criminal matters, save where they concern the family division, and the enforcement of an order involves police, who should be doing other tasks. The Payne Committee has made recommendations regarding the recovery of judgment debts, and it would be anomalous, therefore, for cases for the recovery of sums to be brought before the magistrates' court when the claims are civil in origin. The whole theme of the law is away from using the magistrates' court to using the civil court for civil claims.
I am recommending to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he should consider with great care the report of his Advisory Council on the Penal System, which recommends that there should be power to order compensation in respect of damages to or loss of property resulting from certain criminal offences. I therefore invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—who put his case with great vigour—to agree that we should not in this case divert ourselves from the principle of hearing criminal offences in the criminal courts and civil offences in the civil courts. It is with reluctance but

absolute firmness that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: On the undertaking that this matter will be referred to the Home Secretary as a matter of reparation and compensation for a criminal act, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

DETENTION AND SALE OF TRESPASSING LIVESTOCK

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 25, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen".

Mr. Speaker: I think it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 25, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "three".

The Attorney-General: We had much discussion on this matter in Committee. The Amendment deals with the period which should elapse after a person has seized and impounded an animal which has trespassed on his land before he shall be entitled to sell it to recoup the damage done by it. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the old principle of distress damage feasant, and it provides that livestock which have strayed may be detained, and then, provided that the police, and the owner, if he can be identified, are notified within 48 hours, the livestock may be retained until there is tendered to the owner of the land an amount sufficient to make good the damage, or in the Bill as it stands, after 21 days the owner of the land may sell the animal so that he may recoup the loss which he has sustained.
The Goddard Committee, which considered this matter in 1952, proposed that the right to detain should extend only to 14 days. However, submissions were put to the last Government that that was too short a time, and when they introduced an Animals Bill they made the period 21 days. Having heard what was said in Committee, I undertook to consider whether 21 days was too long in the light of the conflicting interests of the parties concerned. Those who sustain


the damage naturally feel both resentment and a desire to recoup the loss which they have suffered, so they wish to keep the livestock for as short a time as reasonable. The owner of the animal, on the other hand, being prepared to pay for the damage caused, wishes to have the animal back.
Having considered the balance of these matters, I have come to the conclusion that 14 days would be right in the circumstances, and not the 21 days originally proposed in this Bill and the Bill introduced by the last Government.
The period of three days proposed in Amendment No. 4 would be far too short. There would be only one day between, as it were, the day of the duty to inform the police and try to identify the owner and the day on which there could be a sale. It has been said that it is possible in certain circumstances to keep the animal, if one can catch it, but I submit that a period of 14 days is the right period.
I appreciate that there is a conflict of interest. It is in order to make a general rule which will cover the whole country and is not particular to any area that we have to arrive at a reasonable and rational balance between the conflicting interests. The Amendment reduces the period from 21 days to 14 days. I must advise the House that the period of three days is far too short.

Mr. Neil McBride: The Attorney-General has based his argument on the premise that life is lived entirely in rural areas. He has forgotten the conditions that are to be found in highly urbanised areas. The Amendment may make the position marginally better; the right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that he is cutting one-third off the period; but it will hardly be any better for the unfortunate ratepayers in urban areas, such as the great Welsh city that I represent. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman translated his argument to the background of the urban areas he would see how fallacious it was.
The Amendment hardly helps solve the problem of the detention of animals causing damage. How is a ratepayer to detain an animal successfully? What would be an effective method of detention? In Committee it was suggested

that the animal could be tied to a post. In the ordinary course of events it would have to be the garden gatepost. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in Committee, said:
we are legislating here for the whole community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 16th March, 1971, c. 21.]
I submit that he has forgotten a large part of the community. The maintenance of an animal for 14 days is sufficient of a problem for a farmer; how much greater would it be for the urban dweller? My constituents are sustaining considerable financial loss from the depredations of herds of animals which are roaming loose.
I direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the point that I made in Committee on 16th March. The Attorney-General's argument might apply to agricultural areas, but not to a city area such as Swansea, where I live. We would have been better advised to provide for a shorter period of detention, since the impounding and care of animals in these days can be carried out, if at all, only by local authorities, whose powers under the Bill, even with the Amendment, remain as sketchy as ever.
I submit that the purely rural aspect of the Bill has influenced the right hon. and learned Gentleman, making him entirely forgetful of the situation in the urban areas. The Attorney-General's argument in favour of his Amendment and his rejection of Amendment No. 14 indicates that he is not obeying the rules of logic. His argument stands on its head.
I submit that Amendment No. 4 is more sensible. It would be welcomed by local authorities, especially in my part of the country.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

11.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 22, leave out 'ditching' and insert:
'the construction of any obstacle designed to designed to prevent animals from straying'.
Instead of fencing being defined as including ditching, it is to be defined as including the construction of any obstacle


designed to prevent animals from straying. I think this would be better for the provisions of the Bill.
References to "fencing" appear in Clauses 5(6) and 8(2). Clause 5(6) is concerned with the defence an owner of animals can raise when sued by a neighbour for damages caused by the animals trespassing. It seems logical that for this purpose fencing should include the construction of any obstacle designed to prevent animals from straying. As fencing obligations are normally, in leases, conveyances and so on, expressed in terms of putting up or maintaining walls or fences, the revised definition will probably make very little difference.
Clause 8 is concerned with liability for animals straying on a highway, and has the effect that the owner is liable for any negligence in allowing them to stray. Subsection (2) ensures that no liability shall fall on a person who grazes an animal on unfenced land in open parts of the country. The relevant parts of the country are areas where fencing is not customary. It is intended that the subsection should cover all those parts of the country where it is not customary to erect or construct obstacles designed to enclose fields so that animals will not stray from them.
I again remind the House that we are dealing with the whole of England and Wales in the Bill. In some parts of the country, like the Fens, ditches are dug for this purpose, and if they are deep and wide enough they are very effective. But in others, like the Yorkshire Moors, fields are commonly surrounded by drainage ditches which are not intended for the purpose of keeping animals in and would not be effective to do so. Therefore, the definition of fencing as including ditching produces the wrong result in subsection (2), and to achieve the right result, it is appropriate to generalise the meaning of fencing to cover the construction of any obstacles which are intended to keep animals enclosed. For this reason we propose to extend the words to those of the Amendment as being more consistent with the purposes of the Clause.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I should like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions about the proposed change.
I can understand the objection to the original definition, which says that "'fencing' includes ditching", because I should have thought that manifestly it does not. But I have read carefully what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said in Committee. One of them said that ditches are used as a form of fencing and the other that they are not. It obviously depends on what part of the country one is speaking about.
But now that "ditching" is to be removed from the definition I am not clear whether the expression
the construction of any obstacle
is apt to include the digging of a ditch. I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends it to include that; that he intends the definition to read as though it were "fencing includes ditching and the construction of any other obstacle". But I wonder whether it has that result. It would surprise me if it did. Perhaps he could help us on that.

Mr. Turton: I express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for the Amendments. He probably did not realise that the livestock in the North of England are more athletic than those in other parts of the country. For that reason, more than a ditch is needed. This point was made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). Both of us know from our experience of the ways of Yorkshire sheep that more than a ditch is necessary to prevent animals from straying.

The Attorney-General: With leave, may I say, speaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), that it is not only the livestock in the North which are athletic.
I think that the construction of the Amendment is apt. It refers to
any obstacle designed to prevent animals from straying".
If a person erects an obstacle with that purpose in view, it comes within "fencing". I can safely recommend the Amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I have spoken on this subject so many times over a period of years that if I were to speak for any time I should be repeating myself.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) said that this was a good Bill. I agreed with his Amendment and I am sorry that it had to be withdrawn. But I must disagree with his statement that this is a good Bill. In my opinion, it is not. I have a suspicion that it has been influenced by the effect it will have on the rural community rather than on the industrial areas. The Attorney-General said that he was legislating for the whole of England and Wales. I do not ask him to read the debate on the Bill which I introduced 10 years ago, but during it many of his right hon. and hon. Friends from all over England and Wales expressed the same views as my hon Friends and I have been expressing during the various stages of this Bill.
When I heard of the introduction of the Bill in another place some months ago, I confess that I felt a degree of emotion; indeed, it was a feeling of elation. But there is a feeling in my mind that things cannot be as hopeful as I thought they were. When I saw the Bill, I realised that it fell far short of what we expected and was an emasculated version of what the Labour Government did in the last Parliament. An examination of the Second Reading debate on the Labour Government's Bill will show that my hon. Friends and I, when we were on the benches opposite, were very dissatisfied with that very modest Measure. My fears about what would be produced by the present Government have been justified.
It is about 10 years since I introduced a similar Measure which had far more teeth in it than this Bill. It was stimulated by the Report of the Law Commission. The Government of the day—I bear them no ill will for this because it was done democratically and legitimately

—because they did not support the Bill, ensured that it was talked out on Second Reading one Friday afternoon. We have waited 10 years for the realisation of a dream. But in South Wales we are bitterly disappointed that we have so little in the Bill, because we have experienced the terrible damage that may be caused by straying animals.
Fundamentally, the problem is fencing. Yet the Bill will discourage responsible—and I stress "responsible"—farmers from fencing. Many of us regard fencing as the only cure for the problem, and yet the farmer who ceases to leave his land unfenced will probably become legally liable for animals which escape from his fenced land. The effect of that will be that land will not be fenced so that animals are kept in, and yet fencing is what we want in South Wales.
The Bill which the Labour Government produced was short of what we wanted, but even those proposals have been altered so as to give complete immunity to those farmers who put their animals on common and unfenced land. I do not exaggerate when I say that every day of every week mountain ponies and sheep ramble down the streets and into school playgrounds where they frighten children and worry parents. Many owners of ponies seem to worry about them only when the times come to round them up for sale. These are the irresponsible owners who have no regard for the welfare of the animals before and after the sale.
Every day sheep stray into gardens and allotments and cemeteries, where they cause anguish to those who care for the graves of their loved ones. They are a constant menace to health, property and safety, especially of young children. The animals themselves are the victims of cruel neglect. They endure pain and death on the roadside, as anyone who has travelled the highways of South Wales knows. These tragic animals are often to be found lying dead or dying on the roadside.
The Government have reduced from 21 to 14 days the period during which these animals may be kept; but how can the owner of a terraced house with a small garden keep an animal for 14 days? How can he keep a sheep or fractious pony or cow in a small garden shed or tool shed for 14 days? I appeal to the


farmers who know the problems of keep-these animals. Such accommodation is completely inadequate for these animals
The only other good thing that has come out of the Bill is the announcement that a working party is to be set up to deal with the problem. I thank the Minister for this because this has been done in response to the pleas made by myself and my hon. Friends when we saw the Secretary of State for Wales some months ago. May we be told what the terms of reference will be, who will take part in its work, and where it will meet? I would be grateful for this and any other information. Far more good can come from this development than from the Bill.
Time and again I have stressed the willing support of responsible farmers. I have met them and I know how anxious they are to help find solutions to the problem. They are anxious to co-operate with the local authorities, the nationalised industries, such as the Coal Board, British Railways and Government Departments. I hope that the working party will produce solutions with the co-operation of those I have mentioned.
Having made these critical observations I still accept this Measure, although my heart wants to reject it. In supporting it, I do so with the qualifications I have expressed.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. McBride: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) has said, the only grain of comfort to come from this amended Bill is the announcement of the setting-up of the working party. I reinforce the request of my hon. Friend for details of the terms of reference, its composition and location.
The Attorney-General will recall that on 18th March I said in Committee:
In all this, the Solicitor-General has made no mention whatsoever of any power—or lack of them—vested in the local authority, or any desirable increase in those powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 18th March 1971; c. 73.]
In Swansea we have the problem of the unidentifiable animals. This is not peculiar to Swansea because my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) has similar trouble with herds of abandoned horses.

There is no strengthening of local authority powers. Claims for damages as a result of distress caused by an animal are based on the premise that the owner of the animal is an identifiable defendant. The problem in my area is how to protect my constituents and to give powers to the city council when there is no identifiable owner. There are numbers of horses causing distress in the city boundaries.
The position in law is ludicrous. Detention is reduced from 21 to 14 days but a citizen is expected to detain an animal for 14 days and then to recoup money to pay for damages after observing all the procedures laid down in the Bill. How could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell that to any of my constituents? Would he tell it to any of his constituents even in the highly sophisticated area where he lives? The right due to a constituent in the terms of the Bill is, perhaps, real, but in these circumstances it is illusory.
The Bill makes no provision to define the conditions under which an animal may be kept. Here one comes into contact with the law, unless people apply the humane considerations which are common to and observed by nearly everyone. That, however, is not definitive in the terms of the Bill. Nearly always, the private citizen—my constituent—has no facilities for keeping a captured animal during the legal period of detention.
In my constituency there is a huge corporation housing estate—Penlan—which is sorely troubled by these roaming, ownerless horses. A laugh always comes in this House when one talks of straying animals, but if the Attorney-General lived with this problem, neither he nor any member of the Government would laugh. It is serious. The only facilities are those of tying a horse to a gate post or lamp standard. There might be a shortage of lamp posts on that housing estate. Although this might be a departure from the simple and factual, it stresses that without adequate facilities this provision in the Bill is totally meaningless for Swansea. The Minister of State, Welsh Office, whom we are always pleased to see on the Front Bench, knows this to be true.
We are bothered with a problem for which there is no provision in the terms of the Bill, and no attempt has been


made to help the citizen so troubled by animals the owners of which are not identified. No consideration has been given to this modern circumstance. The Minister has, frankly, dodged it.
These animals are a menace in our city. These herds of straying horses in my constituency are ownerless, the great majority of owners have relinquished ownership when they abandoned the horses by turning them out to run wild. It is because of the abandonment of ownership, creating the problem of the unidentifiable defendant, that it would have been appropriate to accord the local authorities a shorter period of legal detention of a straying ownerless animal. The Bill should have given all local authorities sharper legal powers for the sale of captured animals.
This is not an ideological divide in this Chamber but is a problem which must be faced by local authorities, which get no help from the Bill. It contains nothing to help them or to make more stringent the conditions under which these animals can be detained and sold. The ratepayers, knowing that the local authority has no powers, will still complain. The Attorney-General has been remiss in his duty in failing to incorporate a provision such as was half hinted at by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in Standing Committee on 18th March. Had the Bill provided for quick sale after capture of the animals, I am certain that this would have been effective.
My view is that the erstwhile owners of these straying animals would be glad to know—if we could eliminate these herds of horses from within and immediately beyond the environs of Swansea—that their liability to legal damages being exacted from them should they be traced had been ended. In any case, no permanent bill of sale is attached to the mane of a horse.
The horse is a noble animal in many circumstances, but herds of horses running wild commit ignoble acts and cause great damage, including, only last week, the destruction of a greenhouse belonging to a constituent of mine.
In neglecting these matters, the Bill is a weak Measure which affords little or no protection to my constituents. It pays no regard to the urban concept of life and starts from a false premise in

that it is largely drafted in conformity with life lived in rural surroundings and influenced by representations from rural interests.
The Bill does a great deal for many people, but not for people such as those whom I have described, who are primarily concerned. If ignores the problems that I have described in the highly urbanised Swansea conurbation. In short, we looked for more from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: I do not agree entirely with those of my hon. Friends who suggest that this is a completely bad Bill, nor do I go quite as far as hon. Gentlemen opposite who suggest that it is a good one. It is a Bill which is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.
Clearly, it is a difficult Bill in that it has to strike a balance between the farmer and the motorist, between the resident and the visitor, between the old and the new and, perhaps most important, between the rural community and the urban community. However, the problem of straying animals is not confined to South Wales. It occurs wherever high land or moor land verges closely on built-up areas. It is true of South Wales. It is also true of the Pennine valleys of East Lancashire and the West Riding.
Time and time again I receive complaints from constituents who, because of the nature of the land, have had to build on the sides of hills close to moor land and have great trouble from wandering sheep. While I cannot describe the way that sheep wander down in quite the way that my hon. Friends from South Wales have, we have problems in my constituency. There were so many incidents in the town of Meltham, for example, that a Yorkshire farmer named Nimrod Earnshaw decided to tackle the problem in his own way. He would have nothing to do with cattle grids. He decided to set animals against animals. Where the road led into the village, he set two guard dogs tied to gate posts. They were there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They solved the problem. Eventually, modern methods took over. We now have a cattle grid, and the problem is solved.
There are some parts of the Bill which I think are admirable. Clause 2, for example, places the liability for a dangerous animal in its entirety on the owner. That provision is welcomed by both sides of the House. It is a progressive move at a time when we are becoming more and more exotic.
Clause 4 spreads the liability on the owner of an animal which strays on to another person's land and causes damage. I accept that, though I am slightly worried that it may cover the physical aspect of damage. However, I think we have missed an opportunity here in that, if cattle wander, they may carry a contagious disease. The Bill would have been improved by the inclusion of a provision about brucellosis.
I come, then, to the most contentious provision. I refer, of course, to Clause 8. I am glad that the Committee decided not to suggest that all land should be fenced. I think that there is great advantage in having some unfenced land. In certain parts of the country it adds to the amenity values, and it would be very expensive.
I am slightly worried about the term "customary", which could be judged in many different ways. Perhaps a number of years should have been stated in the Clause. It will make it difficult for certain farmers in what I call the grey areas between the high moorlands and the relatively low land of the valleys, which used to be prosperous sheep farming areas but which are now not so prosperous, with walls and fences falling down. Nevertheless, that land is customarily fenced, so the farmers will be liable for their animals.
I thank the Attorney-General for removing the word "ditching". This is a great step forward and, as has been mentioned, will be of great advantage to those in the Yorkshire area.
I hesitate to mention the next point, knowing the great interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the hunting and shooting world. But I am at a loss when I see that quails are classed as poultry, whilst pheasants, partridges and grouse in captivity are classed as livestock. I think that this decision was taken because the Lord Chancellor, in another place, said:
…quails are always domesticated in this country. Quails might escape from a farm but,

we understand, would not be able to survive outside it."—[OFFiciAL REPORT, House of Lords, 11th December, 1969; Vol. 306, c. 716.]
This was a little misleading, because quails are wild, just as pheasants and grouse are wild; they are migrant summer visitors. I am at a loss—perhaps a reflection of the changing habits of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and amazed that this part of game terminology has, so to speak, slipped through the net.
With these points, suggesting that there may be certain difficulties, but seeing that the Bill is an attempt to codify the statute law and to replace a certain part of the common law, which most people were beginning to admit was not completely satisfactory, I welcome the Bill so far as it goes.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) may have touched on the real mischief of the Bill. It is neither wholly good nor wholly bad; it is a kind of mongrel Bill.
The Government have lost an opportunity of speaking with a clear voice about the real problems affecting thousands of people not only in the South Wales valleys but in the country as a whole. It seems that, once more, the Government have been captivated by the blandishments of the farmers in this regard. The Government either do not grasp the gravity of the problem or they do not wish to grasp the reality of it.
In my view, the Bill is a sham and a pretence. It tinkers with the mechanism and tickles round the edge of the problem. There is no point in the Government paying lip service to the idea of the environment or to the idea of pollution whilst thousands of sheep and horses and other livestock are roaming the streets of our towns in South Wales. It makes mockery of their claim to be really interested in solving the appalling difficulties confronting hundreds of people in the South Wales valley towns who are now, frankly, at their wits end to know how to deal with the problem. One only hopes that it will not be too long before the Government introduce a more realistic measure.

11.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Very many of


the points that have been made in this debate were made in the Standing Committee, so I shall not seek to deal with them yet again. The major responsibility for this Bill has rested on the shoulders of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
As far as straying animals are concerned, the major contribution to the debate has come from hon. Members representing constituencies in the mining valleys of South Wales, which is why I wind up the debate. Those who know the area know that although the problem is not confined to South Wales it is there greater and more concentrated. It was because of this that following representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and myself, not only by a deputation of hon. and right hon. Members opposite but by other interested parties in South Wales, we have decided to set up a working party.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) about the terms of reference and the membership of the working party, and where it would meet. It will include representatives of the interested divisions in the Welsh Office—that is, the roads and general divisions—the Department for the Environment and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In addition, there will, when necessary, be participation by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury. The Welsh Office will provide the secretariat. I will take the chair whenever possible. The working party will meet sometimes in Wales and sometimes in London. In Wales, it will not necessarily confine itself to Cardiff but will be prepared to visit areas where the problem is particularly difficult.
The terms of reference I have recommended to the various Departments are as follows:
To consider problems arising from the straying of animals in the industrial valleys of South Wales, taking note of views expressed orally and in writing by public bodies and others representative of the areas concerned; to report jointly, with recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. George Thomas: Those terms of reference appear to pre-

clude the hon. Gentleman and his working party from looking at the problem of horses straying in Swansea and Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has spoken of the problem there, and it is also a grievous problem in areas of Cardiff.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the right hon. Gentleman would prefer me to leave out the reference to the industrial valleys and include South Wales, that could be considered. In no way would one wish to exclude Swansea, where a problem exists.

Mr. George Thomas: Or Cardiff.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) said that the Bill is good as far as it goes, and that parts of it are admirable. I, too, think that parts are admirable. I do not consider it to be, nor was it intended to be, a vehicle to deal with all the particular problems raised by hon. Gentlemen, but we must take credit for being the first Government to set up a working party to look at the problem of straying as it exists in South Wales.

Mr. McBride: Will the working party have legal advice on the problem which I put to the House: namely, the question of damages as between an identifiable and an unidentifiable defendant?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot be specific on that particular point put forward by the hon. Gentleman, but these are matters which we shall be looking into.
This Bill has had a great measure of support on both sides of the House. Since the hour is almost midnight, I know that the House will acquit me of cutting my remarks too short. I hope that the House will accord the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Order for the Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Readings), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts 1955 and 1963 and section 5 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in any action taken or authorised by him for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution; and
(b) in paying compensation for damage suffered by any person as a result of any action taken or omitted for that purpose.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Orders of the Day — OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause A

SHIPPING CASUALTIES

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 27, at end insert new Clause "A":

"A.—(1) The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable where—

(a) an accident has occurred to or in a ship, and
(b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in the water in or adjacent to the United Kingdom up to the seaward limits of territorial waters, and
(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State the use of the powers conferred by this section is urgently needed.

(2) For the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, the Secretary of State may give directions as respects the ship or its cargo—

(a) to the owner of the ship, or to any person in possession of the ship, or
(b) to the master of the ship, or
(c) to any salvor in possession of the ship, or to any person who is the servant or

agent of any salvor in possession of the ship, and who is in charge of the salvage operation.

(3) Directions under subsection (2) above may require the person to whom they are given to take, or refrain from taking, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the directions may require—

(a) that the ship is to be, or is not to be, moved, or is to be moved to a specified place, or is to be removed from a specified area or locality, or
(b) that the ship is not to be moved to a specified place or area, or over a specified route, or
(c) that any oil or other cargo is to be, or is not to be, unloaded or discharged, or
(d) that specified salvage measures are to be, or are not to be, taken.

(4) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State the powers conferred by subsection (2) above are, or have proved to be, inadequate for the purpose, the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, take, as respects the ship or its cargo, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the Secretary of State may—

(a) take any such action as he has power to require to be taken by a direction under this section,
(b) undertake operations for the sinking or destruction of the ship, or any part of it, of a kind which is not within the means of any person to whom he can give directions,
(c) undertake operations which involve the taking over of control of the ship.

(5) The powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above shall also be exercisable by such persons as may be authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State.

(6) Every person concerned with compliance with directions given, or with action taken, under this section shall use his best endeavours to avoid any risk to human life.

(7) If the person to whom a direction is duly given under this section contravenes, or fails to comply with, any requirement of the direction, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

(8) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (7) above, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he has used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction or that he had reasonable cause for believing that compliance with the direction would have involved a serious risk to human life.

(9) If a person wilfully obstructs any person who is acting in compliance with a direction under this section, or who is acting under subsection (4) or (5) of this section, the first mentioned person shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

(10) No direction under this section shall apply to a ship—



(a) which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and
(b) which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom,
and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship.

(11) No direction under this section shall apply to any vessel of Her Majesty's Navy, or to any Government ship, and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such vessel or ship.

In this subsection "Government ship" has the same meaning as in section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906.

(12) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000,
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(13) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to any rights of powers of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom exercisable apart from this section whether tinder international law or otherwise.

(14) Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing this section and this section is in that Schedule referred to as "the principal section".

(15) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires—
accident" includes the loss, stranding, abandonment of or damage to a ship,
specified", in relation to a direction under this section, means specified by the direction.

Read a Second time.

11.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out subsection (10) and insert—
(10) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that this section and Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act, together with any other provisions of this Act shall apply to a ship—

(a) which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and
(b) which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the Order, and subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be so specified.
An Order in Council under this subsection may contain such transitional and other consequential provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be expedient.
(10A) Except as provided by an Order in Council under subsection (10) above, no direction under this section shall apply to a ship which is not registered in the United Kingdom and which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, and no action shall he taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship.

I think it would be convenient to take, with this Amendment, Lords Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
The Government welcome this new Clause and the associated Schedule which give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry powers either to direct the owners or salvors of a damaged ship within our territorial waters to take action to avoid pollution or to take action himself if necessary. This was not a matter which either the Government or, I believe, our predecessors had in mind when the Bill was first prepared, but the incident involving the tanker "Pacific Glory" late last year highlighted our vulnerability and the need for the Government to have additional powers. These the new Clause provides, and I am sure they are a valuable addition to the powers available to the Government in combating oil pollution.
It may assist the House if I explain the effect of the new Clause and the Schedule. The new Clause will give the Government power, backed by criminal sanctions, to deal with threats of large-scale oil pollution arising from shipping casualties where the ship in question is within our jurisdiction; that is to say, a ship registered in the United Kingdom or a foreign ship within our territorial or internal waters. In such a case the Clause will ensure that action which the Government consider appropriate is taken and that a defence, subject to certain safeguards, is provided if action is taken which damages the property or interests of a ship owner or other person affected in circumstances which might otherwise give rise to a civil claim against the Government.
The major emphasis of the Clause is upon a power to give directions to ship owners and salvors. Under subsections (1), (2) and (3) the Secretary of State may give directions where oil has escaped or been discharged as a result of an accident, or is likely to do so, and, in his opinion, pollution on a large scale can be expected to result therefrom. The directions must relate to the ship or its cargo; otherwise they may be unlimited in scope, but subsection (3) gives examples of actions which may be required.
Under subsections (4) and (5) the Secretary of State may, if he thinks that the powers to give directions are inadequate for the purpose of preventing or


reducing oil pollution or the risk of it, himself take any action for that purpose. Examples of such actions are given, including actions which could not properly be the subject of directions. Subsection (6) requires every person concerned with compliance with a direction or with action under the Clause to use his best endeavour to avoid any risk to human life. Failure to comply with directions and wilful obstruction of a person carrying out the direction or taking action under the Clause are prescribed as punishable in this country as a breach of the 1955 Act, which will, under Clause 1, mean a fine within a maximum of £50,000 on summary conviction or a fine without limit on conviction on indictment. The Government regard it as appropriate that the fines should be similar, for a discharge of oil as a result of one of these offences is essentially the same as deliberate discharge.
12 midnight.
Moreover, there could be the same need for quick procedures before a magistrate before the master or salvor of a ship left our jurisdiction. A defence is provided in subsection (8) for a person accused of a contravention of, or a failure to comply with, a direction if he proves that he used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction or he had reasonable cause for believing that compliance would have involved a serious risk to human life.
Subsection (10) in the Lords Amendment confines the effect of the Clause to ships which are within United Kingdom jurisdiction. Subsection (13) makes it clear that the Clause does not affect our rights in international law, and subsection (11) exempts naval and other Government ships. The remaining subsections are explanatory.
I will not go into the Schedule in any great detail, although I shall be glad to deal with any points which hon. Gentlemen wish to raise. Briefly, it provides an important safeguard for the owners of the ship and the cargo and any other persons who may suffer damage as a result of unreasonable action under the Clause. The Title is also altered, in Lords Amendment No. 4, because the new Clause and Schedule go beyond the Long Title of the Bill.
The Clause as a whole gives the Government extensive powers, which we believe are necessary and valuable, but they would not have helped us in the case of the recent "Panther" accident, about which we were all concerned. Even if the Bill had been in force, because the "Panther" lay outside our territorial waters the position would not have been covered.
The position which arose in the early stages of that accident, with the attempts by the first salvor on the scene to prevent other salvage tugs from rendering assistance in the efforts to refloat the ship, illustrates the kind of thing which this Clause of the Lords Amendment is designed to avoid when a stricken ship lies within our jurisdiction. But it does not deal with foreign ships outside our jurisdiction. Hence the Amendment to the Lords Amendment which I have tabled.
I think that the House will agree that the purpose of the Amendment is a timely and worth-while one. It is to ensure beyond all doubt that the Government will have power to deal with foreign ships which may meet with an accident and give rise to the danger of oil pollution of our waters and beaches from a point outside our territorial waters. We should not want any shadow of doubt to remain that we lack powers to deal with any future cases similar to the "Panther". Accordingly, the Amendment will enable an Order in Council to be made authorising the Secretary of State to give directions and to take action in such cases.
The new subsection (10) introduced by this Amendment will enable the Government, by Order in Council, to apply all or any of the provisions of the new Clause and the related Schedule to ships on the high seas which are not registered in the United Kingdom.
The Order can be made to apply to those ships in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the Order. For example, it could be applied, in the light of experience, to oil tankers of a certain size or when in specified areas, such as the English Channel.
The new Clause in its entirety may not be suitable for application to foreign ships on the high seas. For instance, the application of the criminal penalties might not be appropriate, so my Amendment


enables the Order to make the application subject to exceptions, adaptations and modifications. There is, therefore, a wide degree of necessary flexibility, and the Order will be subject to the annulment procedure. I hope this Amendment will commend itself to the House as a measure enabling us to deal with the type of situation we have been confronted with in the last few days.
In conclusion, I emphasise that it will he the Government's intention in the first instance in any such disaster to proceed by way of consultation both with the owners of the ship and its cargo and also with any salvors involved. We shall do so not only because they have legitimate interests which must be respected but because they may have expert knowledge, not available to the Government, of which we should want to take full advantage. But we may not always be able to rely on co-operation, and the new Clause and my Amendment provide us with valuable reserve powers to protect our reasonable interests from damage or threat of damage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I should inform the House that a question of Privilege is involved in the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Roy Mason: We cannot allow this Amendment to go through without debate. The Minister has not only made a major addition to the Bill in the other place but has introduced, at the eleventh hour, a new provision which empowers the Government to deal with the "Panther"-type incident, where there is a stranding which threatens pollution to our coastline, irrespective of the nationality of the vessel, beyond our own territorial waters. That is a step along the path which we have been pressing the Minister to take, and, of course, we welcome the new Clause and Schedule and the Amendment.
In Committee four new Clauses were added to the Bill—it was virtually a new Bill—and now we have the major Lords Amendment and the Amendment to it. It reminds me of the Christmas tree Bills passing through the various stages in Congress and the Senate. It is not the best way of introducing legislation. Because of the protracted progress of the Bill everyone seems to be hanging on to it all sorts of Amendments en route.
We welcome the new Clause, the Schedule and the new Amendment, but

they fall short of really being effective. They give power to a coastal State to take action against a ship which has been involved in a collision, accident or stranding and is threatening coastal pollution.
That brings me to my first query on the major Amendment, new Clause A, which states:
The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable where…in the opinion of the Secretary of State oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale…".
Why are the words "on a large scale" included? Why restrict the Government's powers? What does "large scale" mean? The Secretary of State will have to determine this before there is a leakage from a stranded ship and will be hesitant to act before a leakage occurs. Why not omit the words "large scale" and leave it at "will or may cause pollution"? Surely that would be an improvement, would be welcomed by us and would cut out ambiguity and give the Secretary of State better and more positive powers.
The Lords Amendment does not cover methane tankers, vessels carrying high explosives and so on. Why not? In view of the many Amendments made to the Bill, surely the Government could have tackled that subject as well. There is danger to life, both on the vessels and on the coast line, if there is stranding near a built-up area. These vessels could be highly dangerous shipping casualties. It would have been worth while including an Amendment to cover them as well.
All of us who have taken an interest in the progress of the Bill have come to realise that, under pressure, the Government are stepping up their powers to intervene where there are shipping accidents or casualties both inside and outside territorial waters. That is positive progress. There has been a series of Parliamentary debates and a great deal of pressure has been exerted on the Government by the Opposition. Unfortunately, during this period there has been a series of collisions and deaths and threats of polluted beaches. Fortunately, the Government are now on the move.
It is time the Government spelt out the growing dangers in the English


Channel, the likelihood of more accidents and more collisions and certainly the growing possibilities of coastal pollution. I hope they will consider our charter for Channel safety and especially the question of having such a charter discussed with our European neighbours.
In view of the Press publicity emanating from his Department, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not made any mention of taking the initiative with his European colleagues with a view to determining that the whole of the Channel shall be controlled, and all the ships going through it. Recently, I.M.C.O.—the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—met in London, yet the hon. Gentleman made no mention of that. One would have thought that he would have mentioned the possibility of a regional conference of Channel coastline countries on Channel safety. We have pressed the Government time and again to try to establish a regional agreement with France, Belgium and the Netherlands in order to be able to control the whole of the English Channel.
As long ago as 3rd December, 1970, in Committee on the Bill, I moved a new Clause on the regulation of navigation. I said then:
My final point concerns the establishment of a regional agreement under I.M.C.O. The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation informs me that it is quite feasible for a group of nations to establish a regional agreement if they wish to… I should have thought that the nations of Western Europe and Britain, who are the biggest sufferers"—
from oil pollution, strandings and collisions in the Channel—
could get together. Why should we not have a regional conference and establish a regional agreement, with special anti-collision or separation rules for these tankers—or, if necessary, the right-o-way technique that I have indicated that I should like to see?
All this is feasible and, since we are the major sufferers from oil pollution, I should have thought that it was incumbent upon the Government to take the initiative by calling this Western European conference, so that we could establish a regional agreement. I.M.C.O. would then be able to inform other maritime nations of that regional agreement and our new coastal laws.
If we can establish a regional agreement within I.M.C.O., this Clause will give us the necessary legal power to act immediately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd December, 1970; c. 122.]
In his reply, the hon. Gentleman said:

Powers restricted to territorial waters would be of only marginal benefit".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd December, 1970; c. 123.]
He poured cold water on the general proposition. We raised it again at Question Time on 13th January, and again on the Report stage of the Bill.
12.15 a.m.
We must look at the problem of shipping casualties in the Channel as a whole. We have to consider also the dangers, and their cost, the growing size of oil tankers, the frightening danger of oil pollution, the terrible cost to the local authorities, holiday-makers, the tourist trade, the environment, and the terrible cost to the Government if we have a major spillage.
Already, there are 100 200,000-ton tankers at sea. There are 200 more at the design stage or being built, and there is even a 500,000-ton tanker being built in Japan. Western Europe is importing more than 500 million tons of oil a year, the tonnage is increasing annually, and most of it is coming through the Channel.
In our coastal waters, in the North Sea south of Aberdeen, in the Irish Sea and in the English Channel, 60 per cent. of the world's collisions are taking place. Speaking of tankers alone, we expect at least 10 collisions or strandings in the Channel each year. At any time, it could be a 100,000-ton oil tanker split open from a collision or a stranding and swamping the French or the southern English coast with oil pollution.
We consider that to make the Channel much safer there should be the following agreement between France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Her Majesty's Government. First, we should Europeanise the Channel. By that I mean that we should extend our legal jurisdiction to the median line, and France, Belgium and the Netherlands should do likewise, the whole Channel thus becoming territorial waters. This is not new. It is not something which we cannot achieve. We did it by the Continental Shelf Act in the whole of the North Sea. Indeed, we have parcelled off the whole of the sea bed, and oil rigs can now establish themselves anywhere out to the median line from our English North Sea coastline. If we can do that for exploration and exploitation, we can do it for safety at sea.
Second, we could extend the two-way flow system and make it compulsory.


Third, we could extend the range of the pilotage area and make it compulsory to have pilots on board dangerous vessels and the large tankers. Fourth, we could establish a priority system for wreck removal. It is a tragic reflection upon the Government that, in spite of many collisions and accidents and the growing dangers in the Channel, as long as three months ago the "Texaco Caribbean", the "Brandenberg", and recently the "Nikki" all sank, all are still hazardous wrecks and have not yet been removed.
Fifth, having established control of the Channel, the Channel countries would have power to develop proper surveillance and policing procedures and also coordinate aid and sea rescue services.
Control of the Channel and, therefore, of all the ships which go through it must ultimately come about. It is time that serious consideration was given to this proposal. It would be regarded as a special regional agreement in the interests of safety at sea, and I.M.C.O. would be responsible for letting all maritime nations know of its existence. Within such an agreement, we could determine the assembly and departure points at each end of the two-way flow system. We could enforce our anti-collision rules. When there were strandings and accidents, the salvors, the bounty hunters of the seas, would come under the control of our salvage rules. With compulsory pilotage of large oil tankers, especially flags of convenience vessels, we should be able to check upon the numbers and the quality of the certificated officers who man these ships.
Other safety ideas could be tried out and incorporated into law for Channel safety. A special lights identification signal for the super-tankers could be tried out. We could experiment with the anti-collision calculator, designed by Captain Stevenson and his shipping consultants on shipboard management systems. We could extend the use of the Racon beam danger signal—indicating danger points—as it is now being used on the Varne lightship guarding the three wrecks.
The possibilities of making the Channel much safer are obvious, provided that we can establish international recognition for this type of regional agreement with other Continental Channel countries.
The new Clause and the Amendment of the hon. Member, helpful though they are, do not basically tackle the problem of shipping casualties in the Channel. They provide powers after the accidents; we want powers to prevent the accidents taking place. That is the difference between us. Therefore, we await the day when we have a Minister and a Government with sufficient imagination to see the goal and the prize of a safe seaway. If we use our initiative to press more strongly for a charter for a safe Channel many of our fears about accidents in the Straits will quickly disappear.

Mr. Peter Rees: It is right that in a fortnight that has seen the grounding of the "Panther" on the Goodwin Sands and the blowing up of the wrecks on Varne, with oil slicks appearing off the coast from Pegwell Bay to St. Margarets, we should be considering this Bill and the Amendments. I welcome the Bill and both the Lords Amendments and the Government Amendment.
But the question still to be asked is: does the Bill go far enough, and are the penalties stiff enough? The Bill is not designed to meet an abstract situation, and it is right to test it against the background of an actual situation—the grounding of the "Panther" last week. It is right to start our consideration from the basis that the Straits of Dover is one of the busiest thoroughfares in the world. At any given time there are about 200 ships in the Straits, and of those some at least will be tankers carrying 20,000 or more tons of oil.
More important, only a small part of the Straits lies within French or British territorial waters. Many ships are clearly not competently handled, particularly those sailing under flags of convenience. I do not want to prejudice the course of Liberian justice—I understand that my hon. Friend is pressing for an inquiry into the grounding of the "Panther"—but it is right to make it known publicly that—as far as I know—the radar was not operative at the time of the accident and the navigational aids were not effective.
The first message received from the ship, at 2.30 on Tuesday, merely said:
Aground. Anyone near me? What is my position? Unknown. Approximately


East Goodwins. Visibility very bad. At first no leaking. No assistance.
I appreciate the delicacy of this privileged occasion, but this raises a prima facie case of negligence against the skipper. Unfortunately, this is not untypical of the handling of other ships in the Straits in the past few months. As a result we have had five cliff-hanging days.
I want to praise the measures taken by the local authorities. They responded very well to the crisis. I also want to mention the measures taken by my hon. Friend's Department. I pay tribute to the naval personnel employed in it. They were obviously quite on top of the situation. Their mobilised gates to break up the oil slicks, and the low toxicity detergents they had, were well-designed for this kind of emergency.
We were particularly relieved that the 20,000 tons or more of oil were not spilled on the Kentish coast. We sympathise with our Belgian friends at the fact that the ship should now be in a leaking condition off Flushing. But still the question remains: were the Department of Trade and Industry and the local authorities unduly circumscribed by the legal framework in which they were acting? Will the Bill, with the Amendments, put it right? For instance, could tankers have been brought more quickly to pump off the oil and lighten the ship? More particularly, why was one tug allowed to monopolise the field when there were another two standing by and when Captain Stuart, the Hammond's deep-sea pilot, who had been put aboard after the incident, had recommended that three tugs should be allowed to try to pull it off? Maybe they would not have succeeded, but maybe we should have been spared the five cliff-hanging days.
Against that background I have five questions for my hon. Friend. First, does the Bill give the Minister adequate powers to take control if a similar incident occurs in territorial waters or outside? Second, could he declare, in conjunction with the French, the whole Channel a prohibited zone and—I lift the words, obviously, from the 1955 Act—therefore insist that all tankers at least travelling in that zone should carry a pilot? Third, does the Bill empower the Minister to order a tanker to a scene of

disaster whether within or outside territorial waters to pump oil out of a threatened ship, whether that ship be registered in Britain or not? Fourth, does the Bill empower him to over-ride the law of salvage and order a ship's captain and its owners to accept assistance from tugs available if he considers it necessary to pull the ship off a sand-bank, such as occurred in the "Panther" incident? Fifth, does the Bill extend the power of local authorities on land? Is it sensible to divide the responsibility at the three-fathoms mark between local authorities and the Department of Trade and Industry?
In the age of the motor car and oil-fired central heating, and with a voracious consumption of oil for industrial purposes, we all accept the need for large-scale transporation of oil. But the risks seems so great and the consequences of negligence so catastrophic to this country and its coasts that I, and, I am sure, many others, want to be reassured on the questions I have raised. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will be able to give us that reassurance in tonight's debate.

Mr. John Prescott: I shall not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has said, because we agree on a considerable amount of the charter that we have discussed, and have come to the conclusions before us as being the only way to tackle the problem. But I should like to take the opportunity, in the limited time available at this hour of the morning, to outline a problem I have constantly pursued both in Committee and on other legislation whether the point has been relevant.
I welcome the new Clause, because it is an advance on the old one; it improves it considerably. It goes some way to meeting some of our arguments in Committee about some of the problems arising from pollution which the Bill is designed to meet. It recognises the very real problem, emphasised by the Minister's statement, that a great deal of the pollution occurs outside our territorial waters.
One of the shipowners, Lord Geddes, told the Select Committee on Science and Technology investigating the "Torrey Canyon" incident that it was just a maverick incident and would not happen again. But we have seen in the past 12


months or so that that is far from true. Such incidents are happening with ever-increasing regularity. We have found that the accidents or collisions which have been occurring and causing pollution have been of ships belonging to other nations and not of British ships. Therefore, the degree of control is limited.
12.30 a.m.
Oil pollution can be caused not only as a result of discharging by oil tanker night-slickers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, I think called them, but from sinkings. Many of the oil slicks to which the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) referred came from wrecks at the bottom of the sea, with the oil seeping out, or directly from the collisions or groundings of tankers like the "Panther".
The Bill gives the Minister extra powers. It gives him power to make judgments and to place Britain's interests firmly in the fore and to try to prevent many of the problems highlighted by the "Panther" incident and particularly problems arising from groundings on the Goodwin Sands and delay involved in tackling the problem. There is also the very sorry spectacle of salvage people exercising what has been considered to be their traditional right to salvage, although they are more concerned with the profit motive than with protecting Britain's beaches from pollution. The Minister has gone a long way to meeting some of the problems brought to his attention. I therefore congratulate him on going some way to acquire the power necessary to tackle this problem.
The next logical step is to deal with the problem of making gentlemen's agreements and then finding that they are not sufficient and Governments have to sign conventions, introduce fresh legislation and acquire sanctions and devise a deterrent system in the hope of preventing pollution, particularly from oil in navigable waters.
The Bill is a very good step forward and I welcome it. But it is primarily concerned with controlling United Kingdom ships in United Kingdom waters and deals with the situation which arises when there is a direct threat of pollution through a collision. Should not that control be extended to outside territorial waters and to vessels flying other countries' flags? This raises the whole issue

of sovereignty of the high seas, but it is the only way to solve the problem.
The Bill deals with the trouble once it has occurred. Various measures which have been passed in this House have gone a long way to improving the techniques for dealing with pollution. But we are beginning to realise some of the problems inherent in that. A heavier substance can be put on oil floating on water to make it sink to the bottom of the sea, but that causes problems for the development of plant life and fish. This fact was brought to light in Hull where we tried to deal with a very small quantity of oil—only 200 tons—but created problems in the Humber. A small patch of oil can cause damage out of all proportion to its size. In the Humber, we found that oil pollution could not be dealt with by traditional methods because it presented a threat to the grass and other bank-strengthening plants, and so a number of polluted areas had to be left untreated.
The Bill does not go far enough, for it is still concerned with what is to be done when the problem has arisen. We have read in the Press that the Government intend to adopt some of the proposals which we suggested to them in Committee. One of those suggestions was the Europeanisation of the Channel so that we could deal with the problem where it occurs, so that countries bordering the Channel could agree that vessels plying this busy waterway should observe minimum standards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley made a clear case for the comprehensive charter which we believe to be the answer to the problem. Recent incidents tend to confirm that our approach is right.
In the last few years, and especially in the last few months, we have had the "Torrey Canyon", the "Pacific Glory", the "Texaco Caribbean", the "Brandenburg" and, more recently, the "Trinity Navigator", which ran aground at Bury Head, and the "Panther". They all had a common feature. Many were carrying oil and many were involved in collisions which resulted in deaths, and in total they have greatly contributed to much of the pollution and blooding of our beaches, particularly along the South Coast. But what they all have in common—and I mention those examples only because they


are probably still fresh in the minds of hon. Members—is that they were all Liberian spiv ships. They all flew that flag of a country where shipping operators may buy a licence and an accommodation address and sovereignty for a few pieces of blooded silver.
The "Panther", the most recent example, proved a lesson which we should learn and from which we should condition how we progress towards a solution of this problem. The "Panther" incident showed that some of the large tankers—and the "Panther" is not large as modern tankers go—cause grave navigational problems.
That incident also proved that we have no power to board these vessels. I welcome the proposal that the Minister should have power by Order in Council to board a vessel and deal with any problem at the outset. It will be a great pleasure to ask the Minister Questions and not be told that the Government have no power to act. This new power will prevent the tug freebooting fraternity from scrapping over valuable cargo which is causing grave pollution problems in our waters.
The "Panther" incident also revealed that in these collisions and groundings there is almost always a serious navigational error. In revealing comments, the hon. and learned Member for Dover vividly explained the sort of messages which shore authorities were receiving about the ship's authorities not knowing where the ship was.
Many other vessels did not know their positions when they grounded. This is a reflection on the equipment and the competency of the certificated officers. It shows that the Liberian Government does not automatically hold inquiries into such incidents, as we do. Liberia represents one of the fastest-growing tanker nations, with over 36 per cent. of world tanker tonnage. Her percentage of accidents far exceeds that of other maritime nations. The flags of convenience vessels are floating bombs, manned by men from all parts of the world, lacking proper training and internationally recognised certificates of navigational competency.
These ships strike terror, and I use that word advisedly, into the hearts of those who man our lightships. They sit

there, waiting, knowing that the vessels will come down the waterway, not heeding the recognised navigational signals, ploughing on, the quickest way there for the quickest return. Many members of my union are on the ferries that ply across the Channel. If one of these ships hits a ferry all hell will be let loose.
The only way to control this, the busiest waterway in the world, is for the countries on either side of it to get together and establish minimum standards. They should see that vessels which use the Channel have the best equipment and the most competent people to take them safely through. It should be pointed out that no vessel will be allowed to use the Channel unless it recognises these standards. Countries like Liberia are not prepared to sign Conventions. They have done so in some cases, but the Brussels Convention has not been signed by Liberia. We cannot wait for these countries to do something. It might be argued that if vessels observed traditional standards there would be no economic incentive to register in Liberia.
We must recognise the situation and control it and ban the fire bombs coming down the Channel which have no regard for our standards. This has to be done in British interests. It is essential for the safety of seafarers and mariners.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: The Lords Amendment and the Government Amendment give power to the Secretary of State to give directions to masters or owners of vessels, after an accident has occurred, to prevent or reduce oil pollution of the sea and of our beaches. I believe that the power to direct masters and owners for this purpose should not be confined to instances when an accident has occurred but should be applied also to enable the Secretary of State to give directions to prevent an accident from occurring and, in particular, an accident which would result in pollution of the sea by oil.
One could adduce a great many reasons why such powers should be taken. Tonight, I confine myself to three. First, the Secretary of State should take power to give directions to masters or owners of tankers because, with the development of the giant tanker, there has come about the special problem of manœuvrability


limits. A large tanker today commonly travels between one-half and three-quarters of a mile in the original direction of its course in order to make a 90-degree turn. It can travel between one-half and three-quarters of a mile at right angles to its original course in making a 180-degree turn and it can take six minutes to do that.
Therefore, the officer in charge of one of these large oil tankers has to take a decision at least six minutes before he would have to be in a position, at 180 degrees of his original course, to avoid an accident or collision, and he has to make that decision while he still has between one-half and three-quarters of a mile of seaway at right angles to his course, port or starboard. The need for a decision of that nature did not arise before the development of these giant vessels. It requires recognition in our legislation.
In the case of a 25,000-ton tanker—and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has shown that we may well have to consider even much larger vessels—a crash stop brought about by putting the engines full astern at a normal service speed of between 15 and 16 knots can still require two sea miles to bring the vessel to a standstill. Those two sea miles would be covered under these conditions, with engines going full astern, in 10 minutes.
Therefore, if the only way of averting collision is by running the propeller full astern and making a crash stop, the decision must be taken 2 miles before reaching the point where the vessel must be brought to a standstill. This would be a fearful restriction on manœuvrability if the ship were under rudder control for the whole 10 minutes and the whole of the two miles, but the situation is considerably worse because the ship loses rudder effect shortly after the engines are put full astern. The momentum of the ship, which carries it ahead while the engine is running full astern, ensures that the captain or the officer of the watch cannot, by rudder, control the direction of the ship. Very frequently, the ship stops after having gone through 90 degrees with no rudder control whatever.
If, to maintain rudder control, it is necessary to stop the engines and not run them astern, the officer of the watch can

maintain rudder control for about two-thirds of the stopping distance, but the stopping distance then goes up to six miles. What chance of avoiding an accident, under normal conditions of manœuvrability, would one give to a vessel if it needed six miles to pull up, even with rudder control? Here, however, we are considering vessels which will be travelling at least two miles without rudder control. The first reason, therefore, why I believe that such powers should be taken concerning large vessels carrying huge quantities of oil is that special problems of manœuvrability are posed.
My second reason is that these vessels pose the necessity of far greater reliance on navigational equipment than has ever been known in seafaring. This stems in part from the problem of manœuvrability, but it is also related to a problem of scale. One can build bigger and bigger ships, one can build ships twice as big, but one cannot make a man on board one of them see twice as far.
It is also the case that the larger oil tanker has a higher economic speed, which means that the officer on watch or the master needs to know his exact position with a greater degree of accuracy. Therefore, he must have a greater dependence on navigational equipment. Recent accidents have given rise to doubts about whether navigational equipment was working accurately, or about the competence of those manning the bridge at the time to use navigational equipment properly. Even putting the most generous interpretation on the circumstances of recent large tanker accidents and groundings, one is forced to the prima facie conclusion at least that the navigational equipment on the ship was faulty or inaccurate or that the people manning the bridge at the time were not using it properly.
It must be obvious, in the special circumstances of the large number of tankers passing through the English Channel and the north-east approaches, that the Secretary of State needs the power at least to check that vessels going through these waterways have navigational equipment of an adequate standard maintained at a proper level, and that men competent to use the equipment properly are on the bridges of those vessels.
My last reason for saying that these wider powers are needed in a form which enables the Secretary of State to exercise them before vessels are involved in accidents as opposed to after, concerns the peculiar pilotage problems posed by larger vessels. Because they are so much larger, the amount of the waterways that they can use is obviously more restricted by the nature of their draughts. The English Channel being relatively shallow, it places considerable restrictions on the possible navigation lanes open to vessels. In the circumstances, it is more necessary than ever before in seafaring to ensure that on the bridge of each vessel there is a man with a highly specialised knowledge of the navigational problems of the waterways through which the ship is passing. In itself, that is not sufficient, although the Secretary of State should have power to insist that there is a pilot on board all the time if there is any danger of collision and the spillage of oil.
The powers have to go further. They have to enable the Secretary of State to ensure not only that the pout is on board but that he is on board with accurate navigational equipment at his disposal and, furthermore, with specific knowledge of the handling characteristics of the ship that he has boarded. While it is reasonable to expect any pilot, by virtue of his qualification to ply his trade, to know all the peculiarities of the water in which he operates, it cannot be assumed automatically that any pilot will know the handling characteristics of any vessel that he may board. In view of the grave limitations of the manoeuvrability of these large tankers, my right hon. Friend has done the House a great service in referring to the necessity for collision calculators to which pilots should have access on board vessels.
For the three reasons of manoeuvrability, the pilotage requirements, and greater reliance on navigational equipment, if the Secretary of State is to deal fully with this problem he must take powers to direct ships and their owners in advance of collisions taking place. Such a move would have the virtue of reducing the pollution of our seas and shores. It would have the greater virtue of reducing the risk of loss of life and

injury to seamen which is inherent in the conditions in which these ships now operate.
For evidence of the magnitude of this problem one has only to turn to the statistics of casualty rates which now prevail on the high seas. An analysis of the casualty returns over the past few years indicates that about 15 per cent. of the total world shipping over 500 gross tons is involved annually in groundings, collisions and contact damage—three out of every 20 vessels on the high seas. In view of the high proportion of those vessels going through the English Channel and its north-east approaches, it must be conceded that this power which the Minister is taking, welcome as it is, does not go far enough.

Mr. Anthony Grant: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to some of the points which have been made. Many of those points constitute a general broad debate on shipping at large rather than refer to the Amendment. Nevertheless, I welcome the observations which have been made.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) raised one specific query about the use of the words "large scale" in subsection (1)(b). These wards have been inserted to keep the possibility of Government interference with shipping operations within bounds. This is in the general interest of the worldwide operations of British shipping. Also, the Secretary of State will be able to judge what is "large scale". After all, it is only large-scale pollution, not just isolated small drops, with which we should be concerned. It is very much in our interests as a shipping nation to make the powers on that basis.
The question of general shipping interests leads me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). A general power of direction, even where there had not been an accident, would afford an international precedent which might be used to the detriment of British shipping elsewhere in the world. Therefore, whereas I welcome the comments which have been made, I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlement opposite to live in the real world and to bear in mind that we rely enormously upon our shipping industry. It


contributes tremendously to our invisible exports and has a considerable effect on our balance of payments. We are one of the leading maritime nations of the world. We go all over the world with our shipping. We must, therefore, be extremely careful that generally anything we do does not necessarily mean that we shall be retaliated against in some way in another part of the world. I utter this caution very seriously.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley mentioned extending this proposal to other dangerous cargoes. I fully recognise that oil is not the only polluting or, indeed, dangerous substance which is carried; but this is a different matter which we have very much in mind and are urgently considering. The problems are different and it would not be appropriate in this Bill to deal with this particular problem. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we are looking at this matter extremely urgently.
The right hon. Gentleman sought to take considerable credit for what we have done. I could say that he has been saying what we have already been doing, but at this time of the night the last thing I want to do is to indulge in one-upmanship, because I believe that fundamentally we all want to achieve the same result.
We have already been getting on with many of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have recommended. We have recently been taking a number of initiatives. We had the successful I.M.C.O. meeting last month at which we managed to get agreement, on our initiative, to the Channel separation scheme becoming compulsory. We have an agreement for it to be extended further down the Channel and, very important, we have got the agreement of the I.M.C.O. countries to have discussions with the neighbouring countries—France, Belgium and Holland—on detailed methods of control of the Channel. As a result of that meeting I have invited those nations to an early meeting to discuss this subject in detail, which is entirely in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the meeting between the Channel countries is likely to take place?

Mr. Grant: I cannot give an exact date, but we have sent out the invitations and we hope that the meeting will take place at an early date.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the danger to shipping, and it is dangerous, but it might help to put matters in perspective to tell the House—and it may come as rather a surprise to hon. Members—that in recent years there has been a slight but welcome fall in the number of collisions in the Dover Straits. This has happened following the introduction of the voluntary separation scheme.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), who is very much concerned with the problem and has put great pressure on me in his concern for his constituents, asked whether the Bill was adequate to empower the Secretary of State to deal with incidents in international waters and, if not, whether my right hon. Friend planned to extend control over international waters such as the Dover Straits. The answer lies in my Amendment to the Lords Amendment. We do not rule out the possibility of extending territorial waters but, again, this is a matter which is being discussed at the law of the sea conference in Geneva. I ask the House to recognise the need to move cautiously because of the possible dangers to our own shipping elsewhere. It would require the agreement of the French, the Belgians and the Dutch.
My hon. and learned Friend referred, as did the right hon. Gentleman, to compulsory pilotage. This, too, is a matter which we shall consider in international circles and discuss with neighbouring countries. It would require international agreement. Nevertheless, we shall discuss it. I only make the passing comment that the "Trinity Navigator", which went aground, was seeking to pick up a pilot at Brixham, the "Panther" was also trying to pick up a pilot at Dover, and the "Pacific Glory" had a pilot on board.
My hon. and learned Friend asked whether the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to bring a tanker to the scene of disaster in order to pump out the oil. The answer is that it does. Subsections (3)(c) and (4)(a) of Lords Amendment No. 1 will, I think, satisfy him on that score.
My hon. and learned Friend asked whether we feel that the Bill gives local authorities adequate power to deal with oil pollution up to the three fathom mark. The answer is that this is the responsibility of the Department for the Environment, which is concerned with these matters. My Department, which is responsible for dealing with oil while it is at sea, co-operates closely in the work of the Department for the Environment and I have no reason to suppose that any difficulties or clashes will arise on this issue.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will my hon. Friend deal with the law of salvage, and say how far the Bill will enable him to over-ride the wishes of the ship's captain and owners and compel them to take on the services of one or more tugs?

Mr. Grant: The law of salvage generally is complex since it has been built up over centuries. This is a matter which we will be able to consider in the conference on the law of the sea. I do not think this matter need concern my hon. and learned Friend for, when he studies my Amendment, he will find that, in spite of the law of salvage as it stands, there are these reserve powers for the Secretary of State to take action. I think that he will find these powers adequate.
I commend this provision to the House since they will be valuable reserve powers for us to possess. The fact that we are now passing this Bill through the House will mean that we shall be one of the first countries in the world to pass such legislation. This is a further indication of the initiative which we are taking and is another example to the world that Britain is treating this problem with the utmost seriousness.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry is made in the Journal to that effect.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Special Entry].

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS (PENSIONS)

Resolved,
That the Members' Contributory Pension Fund (Increase of Benefits) Order, 1971, dated 30th March 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr. David Howell.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the facilities now available to a Member of this House travelling on Parliamentary duties should be extended to the spouse of any Member of this House for not more than four return journeys by rail, sea or air services in any period of twelve months ending the 31st March, being journeys between—

(a) London and the Member's constituency, or
(b) London and such one other place outside the Member's constituency as may have been notified by the Member to the Fees Office as being the Member's ordinary residence.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Orders of the Day — QUESTION TIME (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Ordered,
That the Second Report from the Select Committee on procedure in Session 1969–70 be now considered.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Report considered accordingly.

1.8 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the recommendations contained in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 24 of the said Report, and in respect of excess starred Questions is of opinion that the removal should be carried out one sitting day before that on which it is at present carried out, no subsequent readjustment being allowed.
The best answer for a Select Committee is that its recommendations should be implemented. I propose that, with one exception, we should concur in the Select Committee's recommendations in its Report for 1969–70 in respect of alterations in the present Question Time procedure.
The Select Committee's proposals for change fall into two categories: those concerned with arrangements for tabling Questions and those dealing with the


organisation of Question Time itself, particularly so that hon. Members may have a proper and more equal chance of getting oral answers to their Questions. I believe that these changes will go a considerable way to improve hon. Members' opportunities to achieve oral Answers. If the House agrees to these changes, I hope we might allow some time in which to judge Question Time on this new basis before considering any more fundamental changes.
In the meantime, I believe that we can all do much to help ourselves by supporting the efforts of Mr. Speaker to cut short supplementary questions and answers irrelevant to the original question. If we do succeed in curing this problem by a self-imposed discipline of brevity and relevance, the number of questions reached will of course be greatly increased. As for the Government, I will do my best to ensure that Ministerial answers are as brief and to the point as possible.
I therefore recommend to the House the Motion and the Amendments to Standing Order No. 8 in the belief that the will serve towards a better use of Question Time, by providing for greater topicality in the questions reached and for a fairer opportunity for more hon. Members to get their questions answered.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the recommendations contained in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 24 of the said Report, and in respect of excess starred Questions is of opinion that the removal should be carried out one sitting day before that on which it is at present carried out, no subsequent readjustment being allowed.

Orders of the Day — QUESTIONS (STANDING ORDER No. 8)

Motion made and Question proposed,

That Standing Order No. 8 (Questions to Members) be amended, as follows:—

Line 41, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'ten sitting'.

Line 42, leave out from 'notice' to end of line 45.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this Report before us and for proposing these changes I hope that a successful experiment will result. But the recom-

mendation in paragraph 6 might encourage Ministers to "pad up" and it might be a bad thing if they were able to put their pads in front of the stumps on all questions.
As for paragraph 14, the only real beneficiary on today's Order Paper would be the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Also, this might not help Ministers who are second on the Paper, which might not be much comfort to the Minister for the Civil Service.
But, more seriously, hon. Members might seek to evade the new regulations by developing a different form of abuse, by getting together to duplicate or "tag" Questions, and if there is a limitation on supplementaries, this might make the task of the Chair difficult. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would undertake to keep an eye on this.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting all the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, of which I was a member at the time, except the one on the time on Question Time. We recommended that this should be one hour starting at 2.20 p.m. But the Parliamentary Lobby journalists represented that it would not be welcome to them in view of their important business engagements over lunch. In addition, your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, said that he would find no difficulty, but perhaps it is wiser, since we had a change of Speaker, that this recommendation should not be implemented until we see how you find Question Time.
May I answer what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about the separation of pairs of Questions? This was recommended to Mr. Speaker by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). Mr. Speaker himself thought that it would be better. From Table 1 in our Report one sees that 6 per cent. of the number of potential questioners asked 40 per cent. of the Questions. So it looks as if Question Time is not being fairly shared at present. I know that hon. Members are able to get round any Standing Order and find ways of tacking on, but this will be a fairer system and I hope that the experiment succeeds.
My right hon. Friend has recommended the adoption of paragraph 6. That goes back to the old system under Mr. Speaker Fitzroy who occasionally allowed a second supplementary question, and avoids the difficulty alluded to by my hon. Friend of Minister's being able to pad up. Notwithstanding the padding up, the second supplementary question enables the active backbencher to hit the stumps. I hope that you, Sir, will welcome the recommendation in paragraph 6, particularly as it enables you to disallow a supplementary question if you think that it is not relevant to the Question. That again goes back to the old days of Mr. Speaker Fitzroy when more Questions were asked at Question Time than have been asked in recent months. I hope that this alteration will be to the benefit of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NOTICES OF MOTIONS, AMENDMENTS AND QUESTIONS

Ordered,
That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) be now considered.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Report considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session—

(a) a notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half-past Ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House, and
(b) the proviso contained in paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 8 (Questions to Members) shall not apply.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Orders of the Day — STANDING ORDER No. 18 (BUSINESS OF SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) be amended, as follows:—
Line 32, at end insert: 'unless the House otherwise order on the motion of a Minister of the Crown, made after notice after the interruption of business in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business)'.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Orders of the Day — EGGS

1.17 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Order the one following:
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.
I will summarise the contents of these Orders as briefly and clearly as I can. The British Egg Marketing Board's operations came to an end on 31st March, and we have to introduce new arrangements for the egg subsidy to cover the period between now and March, 1974, when the egg subsidy will finish altogether.
These two Orders give statutory backing to our proposed new arrangements. The Guaranteed Prices Order makes provision for the subsidy payments, and the Protection of Guarantees Order makes provision for safeguarding them. The method of operating the subsidy arrangements for 1971–72 has been agreed with the farmers unions, and the arrangements were described in the recent Annual Review White Paper in paragraph 54.
The main changes introduced by the new Guaranteed Prices Order are that the subsidy will be payable to producers of eggs instead of to the Egg Board, and they will be expressed as the difference between the guaranteed price and an "estimated producer price" instead of the difference between the guaranteed price and an "indicator price". This change is necessary because the indicator price was defined as the price the Board would receive in a market which was neither over-supplied nor under-supplied.
As before, there will be a standard quantity for hen eggs to place a maximum limit on the Exchequer's liability, but the minimum standard quantity which was introduced in 1970–71 to stabilise the Board's trading position in the final year of its existence will be


abolished. Under the old arrangements, to be eligible for subsidy eggs had to be packed by the Board after having been tested and found to be of first quality, or dirty but otherwise of first quality. Under the new arrangements, the quality standards required remain precisely the same but the eggs may either be packed by the producer himself, if he is registered as a packer, or may be sold to a registered packer.
Apart from minor redrafting to remove references to the Egg Board, the new Protection of Guarantees Order resembles the old one. We have tried to make the administrative arrangements for this subsidy as simple as we can, and the changes have been kept to a minimum. The producer himself will find things very simple. He will not even have to make a claim for subsidy but will receive it automatically from the packer at the same time as the packer pays him for the eggs. The packer will be operating under the terms of a contract with the appropriate Minister, and will submit a weekly claim to the appropriate Department, and he will be reimbursed for the subsidy he has paid to the producer, normally within seven days of the receipt of his claim. I am confident that the industry will find these arrangements satisfactory during the short period between the ending of the Egg Board and the termination of the subsidy.

1.21 a.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: As the hon. Gentleman has said, these Orders mark the beginning of the Government's new strategy whereby egg subsidies are to be phased out by 1974. They will, of course, be followed by other Orders raising the minimum import price and fixing the rates of the levy which the Eggs Authority will raise.
What estimate has the hon. Gentleman made of the extent to which retail prices of eggs will increase this year as a result of this? Already, it seems, at the end of the first week of free marketing, that producer prices are up. It is very much in the minds of the consumers to ask what sort of price increases are going to be involved. Can the hon. Gentleman say how prices will be affected by the latest assessment of losses due to fowl pest?
It is extremely important that, as the Government's new strategy is put into effect, the hon. Gentleman should keep the Secretary of State for Social Service closely advised of the cumulative impact of these increases in prices, because the Government's strategy means that, whereas the deficiency payments they are now phasing out benefited all consumers when they went to the shops to buy food, it is the taxpayer who will now benefit, and certain sections of the community, like the old and the poor, are going to have to pay the same higher market prices that everyone else will have to pay. So it is very important that those sections of the community which are going to be worst hit by the increases in prices which will follow from the Government's new strategy should be properly protected by the Secretary of State through increases in pensions, family allowances and supplementary benefit.
I want to refer to quality. The Protection of Guarantees Order deals with standards and also the question of inspection. I am only speaking for myself, but one feels that the standard and quality of eggs one buys in big cities from supermarkets and stores unfortunately are very different from the quality of the really fresh eggs from free-range hens in the country. It would be a great pity if it were inevitable that, as our production and marketing became more sophisticated and efficient in commercial terms, the quality of our food went down. One would hate to think that the sort of standard of food to be found in the most sophisticated consumer society in the world, the United States, could come here, and that the more sophisticated our methods and the more sophisticated we became as a society, the worse our food came to be.
If the Government are to adopt these policies, which will push up the price to the consumer of eggs and other foods, the consumer will want to know by how much prices are to rise as a result of the new strategy, and he will want an assurance that standards will be kept as high as possible.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: In all amity, I remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), when he refers to this being the Government's strategy, that it was the strategy


of the previous Government to wind up the Egg Marketing Board, and it was a strategy with which we did not disagree when we had before us the Bill in which that measure found place.
The hon. Gentleman has asked about prices. At this point, the week before Easter this year, prices are ranging from about 18p to 20p, compared with 16p last year. We expect that prices will come down, as they normally do, after Easter, but I think that one has an indication there in looking at those two strictly relevant weeks of the year. I should not here and now care to give an estimate of the effect of the fowl pest on prices. I do not think that it will prove as destructive—if that be the word to use—as one might suppose, although I think it inevitable that the number of birds lost will have an effect. I shall see if I can get some figures from the Department for the hon. Gentleman about it.
Now, the question of quality, a subject near to my heart. I entirely accept that the fresh farm egg, sold literally over the gate, and particularly if it is brown, will always continue to appeal to a great many people. My own feeling is that, probably, the future of the egg trade will be that the multiple stores will obtain their eggs from, shall I say, the intensive-producing units. I think that I should be safe in saying that, dietetically, no one has found that they are less good in food value than the fresh egg.
I am equally certain, however, that there will continue to be a substantial trade for people in a much smaller way who are producing eggs in what one might call the more traditional style, not necessarily on free range but on deep litter or something like that—eggs which may be sold as literally fresh farm eggs over the farm gate. I foresee a considerable trade with people coming out into the country at the weekend and being attracted to buy from the small producer.
So far as quality goes, therefore, I see the future of the egg industry, for both producer and consumer, as one about which we can be reasonably confident.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stodart].

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Selwyn Lloyd be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Mr. Hugh Fraser be added.—[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day — COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER, CARDIFF

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

1.29 a.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I am deeply grateful to the Minister of State for being in his place at this late hour to answer this Adjournment debate. I am also deeply grateful to the Welsh Office for the courtesy with which it has treated me in supplying me with a copy of the relevant report.
For 26 years it has been my privilege and responsibility to represent in this House the people affected by the Canton clearance order. I know well almost every family concerned. I have watched their children grow up, marry, and have their own families. I have watched the middle-aged become the elderly. It has been my privilege to share their ups and downs and their joys and sorrows, and it is only because of their grievous anxiety due to this Order that I raise this matter tonight.
These planning decisions are among the most difficult with which the Secretary of State is faced. I do not underestimate the difficulties of the Minister in having to weigh the merits of a clearance order against the hardship caused to the people involved. This was the responsibility that I found hardest to bear when I served in the Welsh Office. Nonetheless, I had to face that responsibility. From time to time I approved clearance orders. The application for the Order under discussion tonight came to the Welsh Office in March, 1970, when I was Secretary of State. I arranged for a public inquiry to be held at the earliest possible time. Unfortunately, from my point of view, by the time the inquiry


was held I was out of office. But it meant that I was free to represent my constituents at the inquiry.
I do not want to go over the material of the inquiry; the Secretary of State has made his decision, and I realise that it is final. No further appeal is open to my constituents. But in his letter to the Cardiff City Council announcing the decision, the officer who wrote on the Minister's behalf made certain references which I should like clarified. On page 3 of Annex 4 the Welsh Office said:
I am to add that the Secretary of State has noted that from a total of almost 14 acres, the Council proposes to allocate just over six acres for housing, of which 4·3 acres is to be disposed of for private development. It follows that the Council itself proposes to develop residentially less than a seventh of the total area. The Secretary of State recognises that this land will be comparatively expensive for the Council to acquire and clear and appreciates that the Council must weigh carefully the economics of its redevelopment. Nevertheless, he invites the Council to reexamine whether, taking account of the social considerations to which the Inspector has drawn attention, enough land is being allocated for residential development by the Council itself; secondly, the Secretary of State asks the Council to pay close attention to the need for the greatest possible despatch in the housing redevelopment which it is under-taking, so that those who are to be rehoused in the area (and in particular the elderly among them) shall suffer the very minimum distress and inconvenience.
The inspector in his report, which the Minister has published, in paragraph 385, says:
I have no doubt that confirmation of the order will cause some hardship. This will apply especially among elderly people of whom there would appear to be a large number who have lived in the area all their lives.
He then criticises the amount of land that the local authority proposes to develop.
The Secretary of State has made his appeal in good faith. I have no doubt of that at all. But the Cardiff City Council has a sorry record with regard to rehousing in the same area families displaced by clearance orders. It broke faith with the people of Riverside, a neighbouring area to that under discussion. This was done when I was Secretary of State. I well recall the Welsh Office advising me that I had no legal authority to prevent it selling the land which it had obtained for carrying out rehousing, but which it sold for £25,000 an acre to a private developer. I do not know one of the former residents of the

Riverside area who has been able to return to that part of our city. The Minister has appealed to the Corporation, but from my experience it will be ready to promise him the moon but will be very unlikely to produce even a little star. For having obtained £25,000 an acre from private developers in the cleared Riverside area, it knows well that it will get anything between £30,000 and £40,000 an acre for the land it proposes to clear in the Canton area, and it probably will have more than that.
I have raised this matter because included in the 800-odd people affected in the area are people who have lived there for up to 60 years. Their friends are there; their community is there. I know that the Ministers in the Welsh Office appreciate this, or they would not have put in their report the recommendation to the City Council. But will the Minister take steps to make his request more firmly to the Cardiff City Council? Has he the authority to make it a condition of the granting of the order that council houses shall be built on this vacant land speedily, and that those who are being rejected from a part of the city where they wish to stay shall be given that right to do so?
If any hon. Member were to visit the Canton area today he would see in window after window a yellow sign which states
I want to stay in Canton".
We owe a great deal to tradition in this country. We owe a great deal to the loyalties that people have to communities like Canton, one of the most firmly established communities in the city. Since I am convinced that a mere appeal from the Minister is not likely to mean the rehousing of these people in that part of Cardiff, I ask him, knowing that he is a humane man and that he wants the best, whether he will make it a condition, if he has authority so to do, that these people shall be rehoused, that far more of the land shall be used for building council houses to meet the needs of these people? If he has not the authority, will he speak far more forcefully to the authority than he has done in the report which he has published?

1.40 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I am glad to reply to the debate initiated by the right


hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). I know that he will not think me pedantic if I set the record straight by giving the correct title of the order which is the subject of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it as the Canton Clearance Order. It is not a clearance order that is something different. It is the City of Cardiff (Riverside Areas Nos. 7 to 26) Compulsory Purchase Order. 1970.
Perhaps I should stress at the outset that any powers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State possessed in relation to the compulsory purchase order have already been exercised. He has confirmed the Order with minor modifications after considering the objections lodged against the Order, the case made in support of it by the Cardiff City Council and the report of his inspector who visited the area and inspected the properties.
The inspector concerned is a qualified and experienced senior officer who has been employed in this work since 1959 and has held many inquiries into slum clearance orders. Having given his decision, my right hon. and learned Friend has no power to rescind or revoke it, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised. The validity of his actions can be challenged in the High Court within six weeks. This is a legal point. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no appeal, but his actions can be challenged in the High Court.

Mr. George Thomas: As to the legality.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, it is fair to say that, but it is also fair to make the point. Otherwise the inspector's decision is final.
I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about this Order. He speaks as someone who has represented his constituency for many years and nobody knows these people better than he does. Indeed, he revealed at the public inquiry that when he was Secretary of State for Wales he explored the possibility of turning the Order away without a public inquiry—without, in other words, hearing both sides of the argument.
My right hon. and learned Friend has, like his predecessor, heard both sides of the argument and has studied the neutral and unbiased report of the experienced professional who has visited

the area, inspected the houses and heard the objections. He cannot change his decision. but he would not if he could.
The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Order is that the area should be improved and not cleared. It is our declared policy, as it was the right hon. Gentleman's policy when in office, not to demolish houses unnecessarily but to use to the full the improvement provisions of the Housing Act, 1969.

Mr. George Thomas: I did not go into this in detail because I stated the case at the hearing and I advanced such arguments as I was able to advance and in which I deeply believed. My appeal to the Minister on this occasion is this: what will he do with the Cardiff City Council to ensure that these people return to live in the Canton area?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, and I hope to deal later with his point.
How that policy is being carried out is demonstrated by the figures. There were nearly 11.000 improvement grants in Wales in 1970, more than 2,000 more than in 1969—an increase of 64 per cent. in the number of grants given to private individuals. This is good news. The concept of the improvement of whole areas is also gaining momentum. Sixteen areas containing nearly 4,000 houses have already been declared to be general improvement areas, and at least a further 20 areas containing 5,000 houses are being considered by local authorities in Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman's junior Minister in the last Administration, Mr. Rowlands, forcibly put the point at issue in this case in a speech at Llandudno in October, 1969 when he said:
The Housing Act, 1969, must not be used as an alibi for postponing action on the clearance of unfit houses. Improvement and rehabilitation complement clearance; they do not substitute for it.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he himself made similar statements when in office.
This policy was spelled out in a Welsh Office circular issued by the last Administration in September, 1969. Speaking of the type of area suitable for improvement it said:
A too bad area is more difficult to define; but it is necessary always to keep in mind


that area improvement is not an alternative to slum clearance.
This is a sound policy. It is not only one which we endorse but, as the confirmation of this Order demonstrates, it is a policy which we put into practice.
It is not an easy matter to decide when an area is worn out, when it makes sense to clear it away and start again. We do not take such decisions lightly. Clearance and rebuilding are expensive in human as well as in economic terms. We hate to see a long-established community threatened with break up. We hate the thought that our actions will cause distress and perhaps even hardship. We hate to turn proud owner-occupiers into reluctant council tenants and this is too often an accompaniment of slum clearance.
We all feel deeply about this problem. But it helps no one to prolong the life of worn-out areas and patently worn-out houses and 186 of the houses in this area were no longer fit to live in. The right hon. Gentleman himself said at the inquiry:
All the houses in Canton suffer from dampness to a certain extent.
The inspector found many of the houses he entered to be very damp and dark. Some had been very well looked after, but others were in serious disrepair. Sixty per cent. of these 186 houses had no back way in. Coal, dustbins and so on have had to be a carried through the house. The cost of making the house fit would be very high and in some cases exhorbitant. It was clear that the time had come to start afresh in these areas.
There was, it is true, an unfortunate feature to this Order in the comparatively high proportion of fit houses which had to be purchased to round off the areas to be cleared. Many of them are of the same age and type as the unfit houses, but better maintenance over the years has kept them fit. We considered most carefully whether any of these houses could be excluded from the Order, but they are so interspersed with unfit houses that this was not practicable.
The decision on this Order was not easy. There was one point to which our attention was especially directed. Our inspector has reported that confirmation of the Order would undoubtedly cause some hardship, especially to the many elderly people who had lived in the area all their lives. He felt that this hardship

could be reduced if more people could be relocated in the Order area. In the letter conveying his decision to the city council, my right hon. and learned Friend directed its attention to these social considerations and invited it to consider whether enough of the land was being allocated for council housing.
This is a matter for the city council to decide. The law puts that responsibility on it. I have every confidence that it will weigh not only the economic but the human considerations. My right hon. and learned Friend has also asked the council to pay close attention to the need for the greatest possible despatch in the rebuilding for which it is responsible, so that the people to be rehoused, and in particular the elderly among them, shall suffer the very minimum of distress and inconvenience.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend has the authority to make it a condition that council houses must be built there speedily. It will come as no surprise to him to know that the powers of the Secretary of State do not make it possible for him to make it a condition.
We have been speaking about slum clearance, and I stress that when I speak of slum clearance in Wales I use the phrase purely in its legal sense. We have very few properties in Wales which could be regarded as slums of the type found elsewhere in the country. Certainly these houses in Canton are not what most people would call slums.
We have very few slums but far too many houses which are no longer fit to live in—nearly 40,000 in potential clearance areas alone. We must get rid of them, and we are determined to get rid of them. We have found that there are 186 of them in the areas covered by this Order. This is why my right hon. and learned Friend has confirmed the Order. As I said, he has no power to change his decision, nor would he do so if he could.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has brought the case of his constituents to the House tonight, and I am glad to have had the opportunity with him of speaking about this intensely human and difficult problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.